India’s tiger conservation journey highlights the need for a nuanced approach that balances wildlife protection with human rights, the authors write for The Conversation.
As Project Tiger continues to evolve, integrating community engagement into conservation strategies promises a more sustainable and equitable path forward for both tigers and the people who share their habitat.
Dhanapal Govindarajulu, Divya Gupta, and Ghazala Shahabuddin
India’s tiger conservation efforts, deeply rooted in the legacy of British colonialism and its aftermath, reflect a complex interplay between wildlife preservation and human livelihoods. During British rule, more than 65,000 tigers were slaughtered for their skins between 1860 and 1950. Although independence brought hope for the Bengal tiger, which remains one of the world’s largest big cat species, the situation continued to deteriorate. The tiger population faced severe threats from ongoing hunting and habitat loss, as vast swathes of forest were converted into farmland.
In response to the crisis, India launched Project Tiger in 1972, a pioneering initiative aimed at reversing the decline of the tiger population. At the time, fewer than 2,000 tigers remained in the wild. Project Tiger has become one of the longest-running conservation programs globally, focusing on the creation of tiger reserves from existing protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. However, this effort has often involved the forced relocation of local communities, sparking a significant debate over its effectiveness and ethical implications.
The Challenge of Relocation
The concept behind Project Tiger is to create reserves with core zones where human activities like grazing livestock, hunting, and collecting forest products are strictly prohibited. Surrounding these core areas are buffer zones where regulated activities are permitted. By 2005, 27 tiger reserves had been established, each ranging from 500 to 2,500 square kilometers. During the first three decades of the project, approximately 3,000 families were relocated from these core zones. Between 2005 and 2023, the number surged to about 22,000 families.
In some instances, the relocations have had dire consequences. For example, in the Sariska tiger reserve in Rajasthan, families resettled in 1976-77 were provided with land that was poorly suited for agriculture. Disillusioned, many returned to the reserve. Similarly, Gujjar pastoralists displaced from Rajaji tiger reserve in 2012 were ill-equipped to transition from livestock grazing to farming. Although they received water pumps and electricity, their lack of agricultural experience made the adjustment challenging.
Conversely, in the Bhadra tiger reserve in Karnataka, relocation efforts were relatively successful as displaced individuals were given quality agricultural land and had prior farming experience. However, most relocated individuals ended up working in tea and coffee plantations or factories, often facing economic hardships.
Disconnect Between Relocation and Tiger Conservation
Despite extensive relocations, India’s tiger population continued to decline, hitting a low of fewer than 1,500 in 2006. The disappearance of tigers from Sariska and Panna tiger reserves in 2004 and 2007, respectively, highlighted the limitations of relocation as a standalone conservation strategy.
In response, a 2005 government task force, comprising tiger biologists and social scientists, discovered that illegal activities, such as poaching and mining, persisted within many reserves. The task force also noted that having local communities engaged in conservation efforts was crucial for reducing illegal hunting and forest fires.
Communities that were not relocated, such as the Soliga tribes in the Biligiri Ranganathaswamy temple tiger reserve and residents of the Parambikulam tiger reserve, have often fared better. The Soliga tribes opted to stay and engaged in removing invasive plant species and preventing illegal activities. In Parambikulam, non-relocated communities have found alternative livelihoods as tour guides and forest guards, while also earning from the sale of forest products under the supervision of forest officials.
Towards a Balanced Approach
The successes of community-based conservation models in these reserves suggest that collaboration between local communities and conservationists can be more effective than enforced relocations alone. The recovery of India’s tiger population to over 3,000 by 2022 underscores the potential for success when conservation strategies incorporate local engagement and address the needs of both wildlife and people.
A promising strategy is to designate over 38 million hectares of forest, suitable tiger habitat outside existing reserves, as wildlife corridors. Such corridors would facilitate tiger movement between reserves, reducing the risks of inbreeding and local extinction. Additionally, studies indicate that many villagers would support further relocations if they were assured of improved access to essential services such as water, healthcare, and education.
To enhance the effectiveness of Project Tiger, it is crucial to allocate a portion of the annual budget—currently around $30 million (£22.7 million)—toward ensuring fair relocation processes and promoting community-based conservation. This approach would not only support the long-term recovery of tigers but also foster harmonious coexistence between wildlife and local populations.
This feature is based on research and analysis by Dhanapal Govindarajulu, Divya Gupta, and Ghazala Shahabuddin, as reported by The Conversation.
Images: Hippopx
