To achieve tiger conservation targets with minimal human-tiger conflict, relocation of human settlements within tiger reserves is seen as a solution. A recent study by researchers from the Wildlife Institute of India, published in the Journal of Wildlife Sciences, states that “it is neither feasible nor realistic to consider all villages for relocation”. The authors propose a framework for prioritising villages by setting national, landscape, and site-level goals. “[The paper serves as] an added guidance to identify villages for relocation that can provide the maximum benefit,” says Bilal Habib, one of the authors of the study.

India has a network of 1,014 protected areas, which covers approximately 5% of its total geographical area. However, more than 65% of this protected area network is human-modified and home to roughly five million people. The tiger reserves in the country are no exception. Alongside 3,682 tigers, there are approximately 1,500 villages with 65,000 families in the core and buffer areas of India’s tiger reserves, according to the report of the tiger task force, part of Project Tiger. The presence of human settlements in tiger reserves only adds to the complex nature of its long-term conservation.

In 2004-’05, following the extermination of tigers in the Sariska Tiger Reserve the previous year, the Tiger Task Force Report called for prioritising the resettlement of villages from the core areas of tiger reserves for the long-term conservation of the species. Labelled the Voluntary Village Relocation Program, launched as part of Project Tiger in 1973, the National Tiger Conservation Authority defines its twin objectives as “empowering the local communities by giving access to development opportunities and creating inviolate space for tigers so that both can co-occur in harmony.”

Currently, the National Tiger Conservation Authority has two packages for voluntary village relocation: payment of the entire package amount (Rs 15 lakh per family) or the land package, which involves the forest department assisting with the complete relocation process, from land procurement and development to homestead construction.

According to a recent notification by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, 257 villages comprising 25,007 families have been relocated since 1973, while 591 villages with 64,801 families remain inside notified core tiger areas. “In general, voluntary village relocation has been successful in helping with the recovery of tigers and large mammalian wildlife in tiger reserves,” says Girish Punjabi, a conservation biologist with the Wildlife Conservation Trust. “However, there is mixed success when it comes to relocations for the human inhabitants due to multiple social, political, and cultural factors,” he adds. Resettlements have not always been ‘voluntary’. There have been cases where tribal families were moved out overnight, only to be left in the lurch as promises went unfulfilled.

A woman picks mahua flowers in the dry deciduous forests near Kanha Tiger Reserve. Credit: Kandukuru Nagarjun, CC BY 2.0, via Flickr.

Village prioritisation framework

In the village resettlement prioritisation study, Wildlife Institute of India researchers looked at numerous management parameters to prioritise villages that can deliver maximum conservation benefits from relocation. “First, [we identified] which landscape should we prioritise. Then, which tiger reserve within that landscape, and [consequently], which village within that reserve,” explains Habib.

To identify key tiger landscapes at the national level, the study evaluated tiger population estimates, the number of villages, and the landscape complex’s potential for sustaining tiger populations over the long term. The results showed that there are 666 villages inside the core areas of India’s tiger reserves and it would require $1,365 million (Rs 117 billion) to relocate all villages from inside tiger reserves. The central Indian landscape topped the list with the most number of villages in core areas of tiger reserves (348), followed by the Western Ghats landscape (181).

To identify tiger reserves at the landscape level in central India and the Western Ghats, the study considered tiger density, prey density, and the number of villages within core areas. With this process, the researchers selected 10 priority sites in the central Indian and Western Ghats landscapes. The highest priority sites are Sariska, Satpura and Melghat Tiger Reserves from central India and Anamalai, Anshi-Dandeli, and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserves from the Western Ghats. Achanakmar, Indravati, Nagarjuna Srisailam, and Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserves make up the secondary priority sites.

For site-level village resettlement planning, Sariska Tiger Reserve was chosen as a case study. The results showed that the terrain and human disturbance were two factors that significantly influenced the breeding and spatial dynamics of tigers in Sariska. While human disturbance negatively influenced tiger breeding, terrain complexity appeared to mask human disturbance at some breeding sites.

“It’s not as simple as this village is in the core area, [we should relocate it]. But where that village is and whether there is a natural barrier between the village and the core area or if there is continuity between the village and the core area [matters]. The amount of inviolate area generated is also an important factor,” said Habib.

Farmers plough their field near Melghat Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, which is one of the high priority sites identified by the study for understanding critical factors like tiger density and number of villages. Alosh Bennett, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Management parameters

While the paper acknowledges that voluntary village relocation is a complex process, the authors do not consider socio-political conditions and the ecological carrying capacity of habitats as important parameters.

Voluntary village relocation is largely about the willingness of people to relocate, says Punjabi, who is not a part of the study. “[In the study], tiger reserves such as Indravati and Udanti Sitanadi of Chhattisgarh are prioritised higher for VVRP [Voluntary Village Relocation Program]. But these may not have the right socio-political conditions for relocation to happen, such as unwilling village communities, and lack of political will from the state government,” he says.

The ecological carrying capacity of the habitat is another factor that the paper does not consider. Punjabi cites the example of Periyar Tiger Reserve, saying, “Even though Periyar has almost no villages inside, it still supports a lower density of tigers (less than 2 per 100 square kilometres) than Mudumalai (around 8 per 100 square kilometres), which has more villages in the core area. This may be explained by the ecological capacity of the habitat to support prey. In general, moist deciduous and dry habitats tend to support higher prey densities as opposed to wet evergreen forests, assuming reasonable protection in all areas.”

According to Punjabi, both Anshi-Dandeli and Anamalai, listed as priority sites in the study, may naturally support lower tiger densities due to lower ecological prey density even after voluntary village relocation.

This article was first published on Mongabay.