Tell-All
We Asked: Should the government pass a bill to relocate villages in forest fringes to have a permanent solution /end to man-animal conflict? There will also be less encroachment on forest land, hence the least provocation for wild beasts to foray into human settlements …
Conflict between wild animals, particularly large mammals, and human beings, is a natural phenomenon because they have to compete for the same resources i.e. food, water, and space. Moreover, most animals are food for men while people can also be killed and eaten by some of them. Throughout history and before, men have prospered by destroying, displacing, and utilising wildlife. However, since the advent of modern conservation, the human right of indiscriminate destruction of wildlife has been seriously curbed by laws while wild animals, though grossly reduced in densities in most places, continue to do what they need to do to survive. They kill and maim people and destroy their crops and other properties in their neighbourhoods, making their own conservation difficult and unpopular in turn. A logical approach to reducing conflict between human beings and wild animals should obviously rest on three pillars, namely:
1. Put distances or fences between wild animals and human settlements;
2. Reduce wildlife populations where human and wildlife habitats overlap; and
3. Put in place systems for the sustainable use of wildlife and the creation of wildlife-based jobs for the local communities in order to motivate them to accept some level of conflict as a necessary evil.
As the management of wildlife populations is not supported by Indian laws and mindsets at present, the only viable option to reduce human-wildlife conflict in the country is to move people away from forests with high wildlife densities and put fences on the interface where people cannot be moved away. However, both these solutions are expensive and complex. Although most of us think that moving people away from their ancestral lands is cruel and inhumane, in reality, a lot of people living in the middle of the forests are keen to move to economically more hospitable areas. Therefore, whenever the governments assist them in this migration, they happily accept the offer. However, matters become complicated when activists and vested interests enter the scene. Despite these difficulties, voluntary relocation of villages to create and improve wildlife habitats has been going on in the country for more than 50 years now. The results are in front of us. Both people and wild animals have benefitted from this exercise. As, apart from being socially and politically complex, relocation of villages is very expensive, we have to prioritise the relocation of more critical villages. Obviously, the relocation of villages situated at the heart of the areas designated for wildlife conservation, i.e. wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and tiger reserves, is more critical than the villages situated on the fringes of forests. Moreover, conflict in the fringe villages can be largely controlled by fences which is much less expensive and less traumatic to the people. We do not need any more laws to facilitate the relocation of villages situated in the forest areas away from them. Provision for the acquisition of private rights and lands to be included in the reserve forests has been there since 1927 and before. Similarly, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are constituted, under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, after the settlement, acquisition, and extinction of the rights of local people. Although whole villages are rarely relocated for the constitution of reserve forests, hundreds of villages have been relocated from the proposed sanctuaries and national parks in the name of settlement of rights so far as mandated by the Wildlife Act. Even the Forest Rights Act 2006, which in essence is the antithesis of the traditional forest and wildlife laws, provides for the acquisition of forest rights of the local communities in critical wildlife habitats, which is just another name for protected areas constituted under the wildlife law. Now village relocation for wildlife conservation has to comply with both these laws. In all such cases, people are paid attractive compensation in addition to the value of their immovable assets. The current rate of compensation is Rs 15 lac per family, and every adult/couple resident in the village is treated as a family unit. Land for building houses is often (not always) provided in addition. As rural families often have multiple adult members, they end up getting quite hefty compensations. Those who want agricultural land, are provided two hectares of arable land in place of cash compensation. Some PA managers have evolved hybrid compensation systems in which some members of a large family get cash and others get agricultural land which they redistribute among themselves. Thus, families always have more land or more money, often both, post-relocation. Relocation of villages for conservation of wildlife is entirely voluntary and people can opt not to go away if they want. However, such cases are rare and are often a result of disputes about eligibility for compensation rather than their desire to stay in an inhospitable environment. Although the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) fully apply to conservation-related relocations, the compensation in the latter case is usually much more than what this law provides for. This is primarily because even if a person owns nothing, he/she is entitled to an ex-gratia amount of Rs 15 lac. Thus, if a family has three or four children over 18 years, which is not uncommon, the family can get close to Rs 50 lac, a sum often beyond its wildest dreams, in addition to the value of its existing assets. Even more significantly, the forest department continues to hold its hand and ensures access to many other government schemes and subsidies until the people are securely settled in their new homes. Foresters also try to prevent the squandering of money. For example, in MP, the ex-gratia amount is kept in an interest-bearing joint account of the family and the district collector and is released only when the family shows proof that it has entered into a deal to purchase land. Until then, the family subsists on the interest earned on its fixed deposit. This is what motivates people to accept the package and move away to places where there are better opportunities for healthcare, education, communications, and employment. This is why conservation-related relocations, activists call them displacements, are far less controversial. This is why people demand rather than oppose relocations. Unless, of course, vested interests from outside vitiate the atmosphere. - Dr HS Pabla, senior (retd) forest official, Madhya Pradesh
Relocation of villages from forest areas would be one of the best things to do for habitat restoration and reducing human-wildlife conflict, but this is not as simple as it sounds on paper or to comment. The ground situation in India is different from each other from state to state and implementing and executing such a bill will not be a cakewalk. However, this is not the only solution and there is a lot more that can be done. Wildlife outside PAs (Protected Areas), National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Reserved Forests also need protection as they are more prone to human interactions which have a high potential to turn out to be negative resulting in conflict. But, frankly speaking, bold moves such as the relocation of villages will lead to habitat restoration and will surely benefit a lot to wildlife. At the same time while doing this, we need to make sure that the villagers are not just moved out but are also compensated properly. They should be able to function independently and meet their basic needs without exploitation. At the same time, unlike Scheduled Tribes, many unrecognized communities depend on forests for their survival. Therefore, we also need to address their survival and well-being. Many places have successfully developed models and are modifying and developing them so that such tribes can be taken under the wildlife conservation umbrella, giving them jobs within the same and similar landscapes. Similarly, the communities that directly depend on forest and forest produce, if given an alternate livelihood, can set great examples for many districts across states. But while discussing this we also need to understand that wildlife has also evolved with us and therefore in many places instant relocation of human settlements can have negative impacts and effects as well because man has also been a part of the food chain in the forest since ages and in such places the roles need to be understood, evaluated and then changed or modified. With the development in science and technology and conservation efforts it has also been witnessed that many such areas are not yet notified or given the protection status, they must be declared protected or reserved as immediately as possible. In this race of man vs wild overall wild has always lost and is still losing and we have witnessed that with so many species being extinct and critically endangered. Habitat restoration is a very careful exercise as we need to carefully decide where to intervene and where not to interrupt. Some things are taken care of by Mother Nature. Still, since we have been directly involved in our actions in the destruction of habitat and the evolution in behavior of wild kinds it becomes very important to act accordingly. We should not wait and start from somewhere; all actions cannot be reversed but actions can change the expected future for sure and that is the least we can do for wildlife and also our coming generations. This is a view that has nothing to do in favour or against any person, community, or political party and is purely expressed for spreading conservation and peaceful coexistence. - Adv. Pawan S. Sharma, Founder & President - RAWW (Resqink Association for Wildlife Welfare) Honorary Wildlife Warden, Maharashtra State Forest Department; Member - Committee to Monitor Animal Welfare Laws in Maharashtra, Appointed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Government of Maharashtra.
Man - Animal conflict is a burning problem nowadays on the fringes of forest areas. Every other day, the newspaper is filled with news of such incidents as attacks of panthers/tigers/packs of wolves/wild dogs, etc. on humans or pet animals. Shifting/relocation of villages from forest fringes may be a part of the permanent solution to the man-animal conflict problem but not a wholesome solution to this problem. There will indeed be less probability of encroachment on forest land on the fringes of forest areas after the relocation of villages but the problem of encroachment has to be dealt with by other means also e.g. establishing the permanent boundaries of forest, severe punishment for encroachers & persons /mafia involved in encroachment activities. I will suggest constructing a damer/concrete road all along the periphery of the forest area which will act as the permanent boundary of the forest as well as it will help for regular patrolling of forest squad to check the forest offenses e.g. illicit felling wildlife hunting & killing, illegal collection of natural medicinal herbs, destruction of the natural habitat of wildlife, etc. We have to understand first the reason behind man-animal conflict... in my opinion, it is mainly due to (a) the destruction of the natural habitat of a wild animal by man (b) the non-availability of natural food & water sources for wild animals near the habitat or in the forest (c) disturbance/interference created by human in their natural habitat/forest which irritates/provocates them to come out of the forest. Relocation of villages from forest fringes should be initiated by govt to minimise the possibility of man-animal conflict and special effort should be made that it should not happen in the future by making stringent rules/laws so that no one can dare to construct farmhouses/labour huts/resort or any structure to support as the residence of the human population on forest fringes. It is the need of the hour to aware the village population & coming generation regarding the habits, habitat & food cycle of important wildlife involved in man-animal conflict in recent day-to-day incidents. Human anxiety and abnormal reactions create more havoc and a fearful environment even for simple animal aggression taken for self-defense/insecurity feeling by the animal thus making incidents more deterrent/ serious for human life. I think that govt should create a "Special Task Force" for handling the man-animal conflict on the same pattern as RAF /NDRF etc. for dealing with specific problems like communal conflict and natural disaster management respectively. This Special Force may be trained to capture wildlife from man-animal conflict incident areas, to handle the irritating reactive mob & protect wildlife from their anger, rehabilitation process of the captured wildlife, and to create awareness regarding causes & solutions for probable upcoming man-animal conflict problems. This Special Task Force for handling man-animal conflict problems/incidents may comprise officers & staff of forest dept and police dept on deputation as a start/initiating the process. Hopefully, my views will contribute towards a permanent solution to the man-animal conflict. -Anuj Kumar Saxena, D.F.O.(Retd), UP Forest Department
The universe was created in such a way that in the initial phase only forests, mountains, rivers, and animals existed. Science proves that as per the progress of the time cycle, humans actually originated from animals. Although it is a controversial expression to say that humans have evolved from animals, the second aspect is that according to human intellect, the basis of the authenticity of truth is science itself, and science itself proves that humans have evolved from animals only. It is also proved that in the early times, humans lived in forests through tribes and they integrated themselves with animals and nature in such a way that the balance of nature was maintained. The cycle of time moved forward and humans moved beyond settlements and moved towards urbanization. In my opinion, urbanization is the reason due to which the emotional disconnect between humans and animals is huge and the balance of nature is also not the same as before. Urbanization has created such a mentality that humans consider animals and nature as resources and want to use them for their benefit. To increase their comfort, humans have started exploiting nature, forests, rivers, and mountains in such a way that he has even started utilising animals as commodities, be it for food, entertainment, lab experiments, clothes, or any other form. The other aspect of urbanization is also that the population is increasing. One of the side effects of the increase in population is that people want to go back to the forests from the forests they came from and run toward the cities. The greed to increase one’s comfort by making good use of forest resources and animals as commodities has created a violent conflict between humans and animals. Due to such increasing human interference, the wild animals living in the forests, who have always kept themselves within the boundaries of the forest, have now started coming out of the forests and entering human settlements. The result of human encroachment is that animals have become so violent that they are not at all avoiding hunting in human settlements to satisfy their hunger. Recently, many such incidents have come to light in which wild animals have entered human settlements and started hunting humans. These incidents prove how far the emotional connection between humans and wild animals has ended and the wild animals which earlier used to stay away from humans have lost their fear of humans and they start hunting humans. The government needs to pay attention to the fact that humans stay within their limits and their encroachment into the forest is minimized so that the wild animals and resources of the forest get a chance to flourish. - Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, a bank employee, and animal activist, Lucknow, UP
HWC has existed for as long as history has witnessed wild animals and humans sharing resources from the same landscape. Lakhs of people in India have made forests their homes, whether squatters in the fringes of forests or Forest Dweller tribes, recognised by the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognises the rights of such people to hold and live in the forest land as well as collect, use and dispose of minor forest produces. Traditional forests and their tribes have always been interdependent for rejuvenation and consumption. Their symbiotic relationship has never threatened their delicate balance. However, the act provides for the deflection of forest land for public utility facilities, telecommunication lines, mining, and developmental activities, as well as converting forest land into agricultural lands. This has resulted in the shrinking and fragmentation of habitats, making it difficult for animal movement inside and between the forests, crop raiding, and multiple instances of serious damage to human lives. To add to this, animals find easy food near human settlements and ultimately lose their survival instincts and slowly shift their territories outside forests. So, as long as our legislation allows activities that encourage forest fringe habitations, conflict will never end. Only relocation of human habitation on fringes will never result in the ending of man-animal conflict. It needs to be holistic in approach. For starters, there must be a strong identification of forest dwellers as opposed to fringe squatters. They must have unique identification and territories drawn out. The other mitigation strategies would be to improve habitats with edible director plantains to escalate food availability and reduce animal movements to habitations, to create a network of protected areas, construct trenches or solar fences around sensitive areas of forests, conduct training programmes for staff of forest depts and the community, use of drones to track animal movement and provide alerts, controlling crop pattern, providing alternate fuel choices to families living in the fringes, avoiding the building of roads through forests. -Shakuntala Majumdar, President, Thane CPCA
A Different Take
Human-animal conflict is on the rise in India, and around the world, and while some recommend relocation of villagers from forest areas, which can be traumatic—conflict will continue so long as the major root causes of the issue persist. A few years ago, scientists who published a paper on the topic in Science of the Total Environment warned human consumption of animal-derived foods is the key threat to much of the world's plant and animal life. Indeed, a World Wide Fund report warns a whopping 60% of global biodiversity loss is due to meat-based diets and their toll on the planet. That’s because, globally, half of the world’s habitable land is now used for agriculture, with most of that—80% of it—used for animals reared for meat, eggs, and dairy and the crops to feed them. It is in this way that meat-eaters are leaving wild animals with nowhere to go, contributing to human-wildlife conflict, and driving wild species to extinction. But animal-derived foods are inefficient in addition to being hugely resource intensive. Despite taking up the most agricultural space, meat, egg, and dairy provide only a small share of the world’s calorie and protein intake. Plant foods account for 83% and 62% of the world’s calorie and protein supply, respectively. Animal-derived food production uses one-third of the world’s fresh water and one-third of global cropland for feed. This, while water scarcity already affects every continent, and more than 783 million people globally experience hunger regularly. A University of Minnesota study found global cropland could feed 4 billion more people than the current capacity simply with a move away from the production of feed for animals and animal products and toward the production of food directly for humans. What is more, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN), meat, egg, and dairy production is responsible for approximately 18%, or nearly one-fifth, of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Climate change strains wild animal habitats, further exacerbating human-wildlife conflict. Meat, egg, and dairy production is also just plain cruel. Today, over 70% of the world’s meat comes from animals that have been factory farmed. In such facilities, most chickens used for eggs are raised in cages so small they cannot spread a wing, many pigs in crates so restrictive they cannot turn around, and cows are confined to narrow stalls for dairy. In India and many places around the world, animals’ throats are cut typically while they’re still conscious. Even in facilities where animals are stunned before being cut apart, production lines are often operating so fast, that this is incorrectly done. Meanwhile, fishing practices are decimating the oceans, pushing numerous species toward extinction. A UN report states that a global shift towards vegan eating is needed to combat the worst effects of the climate crisis and University of Oxford researchers tell us eating vegan can reduce our individual carbon footprint from food by up to 73%. And according to an estimate, we can each save up to nearly 200 animals a year, simply by choosing vegan foods. October is Vegetarian Awareness Month. For the sake of animals and to help protect wild animals’ forest homes, why not make October meat and dairy-free? -Dr Kiran Ahuja, manager of vegan projects at PETA India
Topic of the month: EVs are fast emerging as an eco-friendly transport option. But, should there be a Stepney battery arrangement for drivers, so that when the battery is exhausted drivers can use a new one while getting the other charged? Also, there should be many more battery charging stations installed. You may send your views (either in Hindi or English) in 300 words or more to [email protected]. Please also attach a colour photo of yourself.
Leave a comment