The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has released a policy brief titled “Reconciling Conservation and Community Rights: A Policy Framework for Relocation and Co-existence in India’s Tiger Reserves”
NTCA’s Directive on Village Relocation from Tiger Reserves
- Last Year letter was sent by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) asking 19 States to “prioritise” the removal of villagers who are residents in the core tiger zones
- Legal Basis: Wildlife Act says that core zones are to be ‘inviolate’ and these must be made so by coaxing residents to “voluntarily relocate” on “mutually agreed terms and conditions”.
- Core or Critical Tiger Habitats (CTH): These are zones inside tiger reserves kept undisturbed and free from human habitation to ensure the long-term survival of tigers and their prey.
- Scope of NTCA Directive: NTCA oversees notified tiger reserves across India, with about 591 villages (64,801 families) still residing in core tiger habitats.
- States have been asked to prioritise relocation of these villages to create inviolate areas.
- The Environment Ministry told Parliament (In August): Since January 2022, a total of 5,166 families from 56 villages have been relocated from tiger reserves in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Odisha, West Bengal, and Rajasthan.
- It claimed that all relocations from core/critical tiger habitats were voluntary in nature, as already required by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 read with the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
|
- This policy comes amid rising concerns over involuntary relocations carried out under the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) directives.
- Several Gram Sabhas and tribal groups have alleged forced evictions, inadequate compensation, and non-recognition of Forest Rights Act
- The policy framework by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) emphasises that the relocation of forest-dwelling communities from tiger reserves must be voluntary, exceptional, and evidence-based, not an administrative compulsion.
- It aims to balance ecological conservation with the constitutional and legal rights of indigenous communities, reaffirming that conservation and human rights must coexist within India’s democratic and ethical governance framework.
- The policy framework, formulated by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, has been shared with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for joint implementation.
Concerns Highlighted by the Tribal Affairs Ministry
- Non-implementation of FRA: States have failed to recognize community and individual forest rights before eviction.
- Lack of Consent: Relocations have often occurred without Gram Sabha resolutions or proper awareness of alternatives.
- Inadequate Compensation: Many displaced families face livelihood loss, poor rehabilitation, and social disintegration.
- Conflict of Interest: Forest Departments often act as both implementers and monitors of relocation projects, leading to accountability gaps
|
Voluntary Village Relocation Program (VVRP)
- It was launched as part of Project Tiger in 1973, the NTCA defines its twin objectives
- Providing livelihood and infrastructure opportunities to relocated families, and
- Creating inviolate spaces for tigers to thrive.
- Voluntary and Rights-Based Relocation: All relocations must be voluntary and based on informed consent of Gram Sabhas and affected families.
- Compensation Options:
- Financial package: ₹15 lakh per family.
- Resettlement package: Land, housing, and access to basic amenities such as roads, water, sanitation, electricity, and telecommunication.
|
About A Policy Framework for Relocation and Co-existence in India’s Tiger Reserves:
- A national-level policy framework to guide how forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers are to be treated during relocation from tiger reserves.
- Developed by: Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) in 2025
Key Features of the Policy Framework
- Voluntary and Evidence-Based Relocation: Relocation must be a last resort, only when coexistence between humans and wildlife poses a demonstrable ecological threat.
- Consent must be free, prior, and informed (FPIC), with participation from the Gram Sabha and verified by independent civil society observers.
- National Framework for Community-Centred Conservation and Relocation (NFCCR): The framework proposes the creation of the NFCCR, jointly managed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to:
- Set standardized procedures, timelines, and accountability systems for all relocation projects.
- Encourages evidence-based decision-making through scientific assessments of human–wildlife conflict, habitat viability, and livelihood implications.
- National Database on Conservation-Community Interface (NDCCI): It proposed a centralized digital database to track the Families and villages relocated, Compensation provided, Post-relocation livelihood status & Human rights and FRA compliance.
- Enables transparency and public accountability in conservation-driven resettlement programs.
- Independent Audits and Grievance Redressal
- Annual audits by empanelled independent agencies to ensure adherence to FRA and Wildlife Protection Act provisions.
- A three-tier grievance redressal system (District–State–National) for affected communities.
- Appointment of Compliance and Safeguards Officers in each tiger reserve.
- In-Situ Development and Coexistence Models: Where relocation is not preferred, the framework allows:
- Development of basic infrastructure (roads, health, education) in-situ,
- Inclusion of Gram Sabha members in Tiger Conservation Foundations and Eco-Development Committees,
- Promotion of co-habitation models demonstrating sustainable forest living and conservation synergy.
- Options for Communities: Communities can live in “traditional forest habitats” exercising their Individual or Community Forest Rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA).
Legal and Constitutional Basis
| Law / Provision |
Key Mandate (Fact-checked & Enriched) |
| Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) |
- Recognizes individual, community, and habitat rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (Sections 3–5).
- Relocation allowed only after settlement of rights under Section 4(2) and with free, prior, and informed consent of the Gram Sabha.
- Empowers Gram Sabhas to protect, conserve, and manage forest resources.
|
| Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended 2006) |
- Requirements have been laid down for voluntary relocation of people on ‘mutually agreed terms and conditions’, for the purpose of creating inviolate areas for tiger conservation
- Empowers the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to approve tiger-reserve plans and ensure human–wildlife coexistence.
- National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA): Established to manage and protect tiger reserves and ensure that protected areas are not diverted for ecologically unsustainable uses.
|
| Constitution – Article 21 |
- Protects the right to life and livelihood with dignity; forced evictions without due process violate this right.
|
| Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) |
- Mandates that the prior approval of the Gram Sabha is mandatory for any land acquisition, resettlement, or rehabilitation in tribal areas
- Empowers local communities to manage natural resources and decide development priorities.
|
| SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 |
- Section 3(1) protects Scheduled Castes and Tribes from unlawful dispossession, destruction of property, and forced eviction, with severe penalties for those found guilty, including public servants.
- Officials found responsible for wrongful displacement can be prosecuted.
|
| Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR) |
- Fair Compensation: Ensures that land owners receive just and fair compensation for their land, based on market value and other specified factors.
- Transparency: Mandates a transparent process for land acquisition, including the need for a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to determine the potential effects of the project on the affected population.
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R): Provides comprehensive R&R benefits for all persons and families displaced by the acquisition, aiming to improve their living standards or at least restore them to their pre-acquisition status.
- Informed Consent: Requires the consent of a majority of land owners in certain cases, particularly for private companies or public-private partnerships (PPPs) acquiring land.
|
| Constitutional Directive Principles (Articles 48A & 51A(g)) |
• Enjoin the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment. • Provide the ethical foundation for balancing ecological conservation with human rights. |
Impact of Forced Relocation
- Marginalization: Aggressive push for forced removal from their settlement risks deepening economic and social vulnerabilities driving affected tribal communities into poverty, wage dependence, and destitution.
- Example: Evicted 40 years ago from Karnataka’s Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, 52 Jenu Kuruba families have reoccupied their ancestral village to reclaim forest rights and protest livelihood loss caused by forced relocation.
- Inadequate Rehabilitation and Broken Promises: Rehabilitation packages frequently fail to provide habitable land, housing, or essential infrastructure, leaving families in limbo for years.
- Example: In Sahyadri Tiger Reserve (Maharashtra), relocated families demanded return after a decade without roads or drinking water
- Legal and Human-Rights Violations: Evictions without settling FRA rights or obtaining free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) violate domestic law and international human-rights obligations.
- Example: The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) flagged forced relocations from tiger reserves across 18 states as rights violations
- Social Fragmentation and Conflict: Displaced families often face disputes with host communities or internal divisions due to unequal access to compensation and resources.
- Cultural and Spiritual Displacement: Forced relocations sever communities’ ties with sacred groves, ancestral burial sites, and customary ecological practices, eroding their cultural identity.
- Uncertain Conservation Outcomes: Relocation does not automatically translate into higher tiger or prey densities; without habitat improvement, ecological gains remain marginal.
- The blanket relocation offers limited ecological benefit unless paired with habitat restoration
Challenges in Effective Implementation of the Policy
- Incomplete Recognition of Rights: Many states have initiated relocation without completing the settlement of Individual and Community Forest Rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), violating Section 4(2).
- Example: State tribal development department (TDD) has delayed voluntary relocation of five villages in Melghat Tiger Reserve (MTR) on the ground that their community forest rights (CFRs) and individual forest rights (IFRs) have been not settled under FRA 2006
- Weak Verification of “Voluntary” Consent: Although the policy demands free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), several relocations have lacked authentic Gram Sabha resolutions or were carried out through administrative pressure.
- Example: Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has ordered a probe into allegations that the Odisha Forest Department fraudulently obtained villagers’ consent for relocation from the core areas of Similipal Tiger Reserve (STR).
- Absence of Scientific Evidence for Relocation Decisions: Many relocations are driven by administrative targets rather than ecological assessments of prey base, habitat fragmentation, or conflict intensity.
- Poor Inter-Agency Coordination and Role Clarity: Effective relocation needs synchronised implementation between the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and state forest departments; lack of coordination causes duplication or conflicting mandates.
- Inadequate Post-Relocation Support and Monitoring: Compensation is often delivered as a one-time grant without long-term livelihood or social-integration measures, leading to impoverishment and migration.
- Weak Data Transparency and Grievance Mechanisms: Absence of a functioning national database or independent audits makes it difficult to track compensation delivery or human-rights compliance
Way Forward
- Prioritise FRA Compliance Before Any Relocation: Ensure all Individual and Community Forest Rights are settled and consent recorded before initiating relocation to align with FRA 2006 and MoTA’s 2025 policy brief.
- Make Relocation Evidence-Based and Selective: Use scientific criteria like wildlife population, habitat pressure, and conflict intensity to decide if relocation is ecologically necessary.
- Strengthen Transparency and Consent Verification: Create independent observers and public disclosure of Gram Sabha resolutions, ensuring relocations are genuinely voluntary and documented.
- Establish Post-Relocation Livelihood and Social Monitoring: Link relocated families to long-term livelihood programs (National Rural Livelihoods Mission, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Gramin) and monitor their income, housing, and access to public services.
- Institutionalise Data Systems and Independent Audits: Operationalise the National Database on Conservation-Community Interface (NDCCI) and conduct annual third-party audits on relocation projects.
- Promote In-situ Conservation and Co-existence Models: Where human–wildlife conflict is minimal, strengthen local infrastructure, integrate Gram Sabha members into eco-development committees, and support cohabitation.
Conclusion
A rights-first and evidence-based approach alone can reconcile tiger conservation with constitutional justice, making relocation the rare, last-resort tool rather than an administrative default.
11 Nov 2025
.png)
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
