Recently, the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ new policy framework redefines India’s tiger conservation model — shifting from fortress-style protection to a community-driven approach that views local forest dwellers as stakeholders in preserving biodiversity and ensuring sustainable coexistence.
Policy Overview
- People-Centred Conservation: Declares that relocation cannot occur until the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 process is complete.
- Relocation as Exception: Reverses the 2024 National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) directive ordering mass village removals from tiger reserves.
- Sustainable Coexistence: Encourages research and pilot projects on human–tiger cohabitation for inclusive and adaptive conservation.
- Legal Protection: Invokes the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to deter unlawful evictions and introduces a three-tier grievance redress mechanism.
Origin of the Fortress Model – Yellowstone Precedent
- The ‘Fortress Conservation’ model emerged from the creation of Yellowstone National Park (1872, USA) — the world’s first national park.
- It established the principle that wild nature must be protected by excluding people — especially indigenous inhabitants, who were forcibly evicted to make the park “pristine.”
- This “fences and fines” philosophy—protecting wildlife by fencing them off and criminalising human use—became the global template for early conservation.
Transfer to the Indian Context
- During the colonial era, British administrators adopted this Yellowstone-style model in India.
- Reserved Forests and National Parks (under the Indian Forest Act, 1927) were declared state-controlled areas, displacing local and tribal populations.
- Post-Independence, this idea persisted in programmes like:
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
- Project Tiger, 1973
- These initiatives treated forest dwellers as encroachers, reinforcing the fortress mindset—protecting wildlife through exclusion and relocation.
|
Community-Centric Conservation Approach
- Legal Recognition: Acknowledges forest dwellers’ legal, cultural, and livelihood rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
- Social Contract Model: Frames conservation as a social contract, harmonising ecological integrity with human dignity and justice.
- Participatory Development: Promotes local participation in conservation planning and eco-development programmes linked to sustainable livelihoods.
Challenges and Divergent Needs
- Varied Aspirations: Some communities seek modern amenities like schools and hospitals, while others prefer traditional lifestyles.
- Ecological Sensitivity: Tigers, as apex predators, require human-free core zones for survival and reproduction.
- Balanced Strategy: A national mission must blend scientific habitat protection with community rights and welfare.
Implementation and Institutional Concerns
- Administrative Gaps: Central ministries lack the capacity for localised, site-specific conservation mechanisms.
- Institutional Resistance: Forest Departments may resist due to added administrative and implementation burdens.
- State-Level Disparities: The success of the framework depends on State government enforcement and willingness to uphold rights-based conservation.
- Dual Policy Risk: Both fortress and coexistence models may continue simultaneously, reducing policy coherence.
Need for Fine-Grained Mechanisms
- Localised Frameworks: Create area-specific policies combining scientific data with community participation for balanced outcomes.
- Transparent Monitoring: Ensure relocation, compensation, and rights protection through regular independent audits.
- Grassroots Governance: Strengthen Gram Sabhas as participatory bodies in decision-making across protected and buffer areas.
Systemic Shortcomings in Past Conservation
- Alienation of Locals: The fortress model excluded communities, creating social conflict and ineffective protection.
- Administrative Failures: Delayed compensation, weak rehabilitation, and poor coordination eroded public trust.
- Narrow Ecological View: Treating forests only for carbon storage or climate mitigation neglects their social and ecological balance.
Broader Implications for Conservation Policy
- Rights-Based Approach: Aligns with global biodiversity conventions supporting community stewardship and inclusive conservation.
- Social Legitimacy: Builds long-term ecological resilience by integrating equity and inclusivity into policy.
- Ethical Environmentalism: Promotes a shift from exclusion to empowerment, defining conservation as a collective civic responsibility.
Way Forward
- Integrated Planning: Foster collaboration between the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
- Scientific Core Protection: Maintain inviolate tiger habitats while developing coexistence-friendly buffer zones.
- Capacity Building: Train communities in sustainable livelihood practices and biodiversity management.
- Accountability Measures: Mandate independent monitoring of compensation and rights enforcement.
- Awareness Campaigns: Educate the public on the idea of “people as protectors” to foster community ownership.
Conclusion
India’s new conservation model blends science with social justice, recognising that protecting tigers and forests depends on empowering forest communities. Sustainable coexistence, not exclusion, is the path toward ethical and resilient environmental governance.
31 Oct 2025
.png)
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
