One Community - Forest Rights Act, 2006 in the Sariska Tiger Reserve by DEL Laboratory

LOGO DESIGN LED LAB

L O PIN G WITH THE LAW A R ep or t on The Sa r i sk a Ti g er Reser ve ,

A REPORT BY:

Alw ar, R ajasth a n, Indi a

Jo shua Iy pe Meg hna Ja swa l Na o mi Sha h

Report Prepared under a Creative Commons License for

Sa ni k a Sa ha sr a buddhe

Law Environment and Design Laboratory (LED Lab), January-April 2013.

MENTORS:

Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology,

Deept a Sa t eesh

Bangalore

Ar pi t ha Kodi ver i

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPICS

PAGES

About the Project Geographical Context Habitation

6-9

Research Documentation

11-15

Aravari Sansad Great Himalayan National Park Laws Biodiversity Act (2002) Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (2011) Offering Map

Analysis

16-30

Issue Cards Stakeholder Map SWOT Analysis

Problem and Vision Statements

Tiger Response Team Awareness Depredation

PAGES

Design Tools

Present Context Spatial History Tourist Spots, Landmarks and Settlements Map Legal History Demographics

Community Practices Case Studies

TOPICS

Environmentalists VS Social Scientists Conservatory Practices NGO KRAPAVIS Threats to Community Tourism as a threat Resource Map Threat to ecosystem Threats Map Tehsil Map Soil Patterns Map Design Intervention

Goals Communication Tool Kit Components Next Steps

ABOUT THE PROJECT

ALWAR

The Project aims to facilitate legal intervention in the context of the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Alwar, Rajasthan where the local communities, mainly Gujjars are facing relocation due to the land being categorized as a “critical tiger habitat” under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. The project aims at understanding the scope for the implementation of laws such as the Forest Rights Act (2008) and Biodiversity Act (2002) in the Sariska Tiger Reserve.

GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT The Sariska Tiger Reserve is situated in Alwar, Rajasthan, located in the Aravalli Hills (27°30’N 76°22’E). It covers an area of 866 sq. km and is composed of Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary covering 492 sq. km and stretches of adjoining reserved and protected forests that together cover 374 sq. km. Sariska is located in the semi-arid zone of northwestern India and has tropical dry deciduous forest, with patches of scrub and evergreen riparian forest and secluded streams, jheels and springs such as the one at Pandupole (Hanuman Temple).

Source: http://www.indiamapssite.com/rajasthan/outline/images/rajasthan-outline-map.gif

PRESENT CONTEXT The Sariska Tiger Reserve has become a Critical Tiger Habitat and has been divided into various core areas and a buffer zone around them. There are approximately 3000 villagers within core area of the reserve. Although some of the Community members voluntarily choose to relocate, the others are constantly pressurized into relocating by the Forest Department. The community has been in Sariska and Alwar for more than 75 years (one of the prerequisites a community must meet in order to be claim certain rights under the FRA) and has become part of a larger ecosystem (the forest ecosystem) that also includes the Tiger.

SPATIAL HISTORY The area today comprising Sariska Tiger Reserve was an important hunting reserve for the princely state of Alwar since the early twentieth century. The late Maharaja Jai Singh, who completed his palace here in 1894, was an avid hunter and he and his guests killed many tigers. But as a consequence the forest was mercifully saved from the plough and axe. When the privy purses were abolished, Sariska’s worth was recognized by democratic India’s new rulers3. The villages existing today inside Core Area 1 were established during the same period under the lamberdaari system for revenue collection.

HABITATION On account of the presence of wetland areas in Sariska, one can see a large variety of bird species, including passage migrants. Sariska has been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA)1. The Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris) is the umbrella species. Other carnivores such as jackals, leopards, and herbivores such as sambhar, chital, nilgay and wild boars are found here. The Reserve is home to traditional forest dwelling communities including Gujjars, Meenas, Rajputs, Brahmins and Meos2. Shahabuddin, G., Kumar, R. & Verma, A. 2006. Annotated checklist of the birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Indian Birds 2 w(3): 71-76. 1

Sanctuary Asia Magazine Website, Section:Travel, Sariska Tiger Reserve, Sub-section: History, 2013.

Johari, Radhika. ‘Conservation Regimes and Identities in India’. Department of Anthropology, York University

LEGAL HISTORY ‘Against a colonial legacy of commercial timber harvesting and rampant hunting, the dawning of India’s conservation era since the early 1970’s resulted in the creation of an extensive network of protected areas – national parks, tiger reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries, buttressed by a formidable legislative and institutional framework’4 . Post-independence, the history of STR’s management followed a pattern of gradually tightening restrictions on forest use by local people starting with its’ notification as a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1958, up-gradation to Tiger Reserve in 1979 and finally, a National Park in 1982. Sadly, the Gujjur community residing within the newly appointed NP was left with many unsettled issues regarding breaches of their rights. This in itself was a violation of the WPA of 1972, which requires authorities to settle rights issues communities within the area might have. In 2006, Sariska was declared as a ‘critical tiger habitat’ in response to the passing of the Forest Rights Act in 2006. The claim that human settlements within the reserve would interfere with the tiger’s territory and possibly it’s safety, has led to the conflict that exists in Sariska today. From the data collected (both field observations and secondary data), it was seen that while the community’s practices had a symbiotic relation with the environment and ecology, some activities also seemed to have a negative effect on the non-human components of the eco-system. Intensive biomass extraction alters vegetation/forest structure and composition of the forest, which may affect resident flora and fauna. Cutting and lopping activities for fodder (grazing), fuel wood and non-timber forest produce (NTFP) is the most widespread form of anthropogenic pressure in developing countries like India5.

Johari, Radhika. ‘Conservation Regimes and Identities in India’. Department of Anthropology, York University 5 Kumar, R. and G. Shahabuddin, 2006. Conservation and Society 4(4): 562-591. 4

DEMOGRAPHICS The situation in the Sariska Tiger Reserve is extremely complex, and the issues are multi-layered. From a week-long field visit to certain villages in the core area of Sariska, it became evident, that not only is the community fractured and heterogeneous, but every organization involved has their own agenda and motivation in constructing an identity for the forest dwelling community. The communities that resided inside the reserve are Gujjars, Meenas, Bairwas, Rajputs, Brahmins and Meos. Gujjars comprise of 87.4% of this population6 . They are a Hindu community, currently under the status of Other Backward Classes (OBC) and are pastoralists who mainly earn their living by selling goat and buffalo milk in Alwar town. Hence, they are highly dependent on forest resources for fodder that is obtained from trees like Dhok (Anogeissus pendula), which is a common tree found in Sariska. The core of Sariska is divided in Core 1, Core 2 and Core 3. The villages Haripura, Lilunda, Umari, Devri and Kraska lie in Core 1. Haripura and Lilunda are completely intact and not relocated. Kraska is 55% relocated(a). Umari and Devri have been allotted land for resettlement near Maujpur, which is in Sariska’s buffer zone. The relocated forest dwellers, seek labour opportunities in Maujpur and also practice mustard seed cultivation.

Shahabuddin, G., R. Kumar & M. Shrivastava. 2005. Forgotten Villages: A People’s Perspective on Village Displacement from Sariska Tiger Reserve. Technical Report. National Foundation for India & Council for Social Development, New Delhi. Pp 135. 6

Field Notes: Brief by NGO KRAPAVIS 28th January 2013.

(a)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

VISION STATEMENT

The Sariska Tiger Reserve is facing degradation of the ecosystem, due to forest-dwelling community activities like overgrazing of livestock and commercial activities like mining and tourism. The Community has been denied certain rights due to non-implementation of the Forest Rights Act (2008). Majority of the Gujjar community is being relocated outside the Reserve and their post-relocation living conditions are unsatisfactory. This is a result of the contract between members of the Gujjar Community and Forest department being rendered voidable* by the latter.

Creating awareness about participatory conservation through guidelines for/at the Gram Panchayat level, to form the FRC and empower the community to obtain access benefits as incentives for protecting the ecology. Using local knowledge to construct a resource map for ecological awareness. Creating opportunities for the FD and community to have a civil dialogue, and co-manage the forest resources. Simultaneously, ensuring habitable and necessary living conditions along with an adequate package for relocated community members. Through project deliverables, trying to communicate the law to the Gujjars to empower them to claim forest rights, through an informed process.

* A voidable contract is one in which one of the parties fails to fulfill their promises. A void contract is actually not an official contract, which also explains the â&#x20AC;&#x153;oral promiseâ&#x20AC;? of the Forest Department to the Community.

RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION The Sariska Tiger Reserve situated in the district of Alwar stations a situation which is fairly multi-layered and complex. The heterogeneity in the situation and the divergent viewpoints that were encountered during the fieldwork were aspects that were taken into consideration during the analysis. The Gujjar community comprised of 87.4% of the population in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, who are an OBC (other backward class) community who follow Hinduism. Other communities in the reserve were the Meenas, Bairwas, Rajputs, Brahmins and Meos. The Gujjurs were mainly pastoralists, and earned their living by selling milk that was obtained from the livestock they owned. Commercially, the milk and mawa cakes were sold in towns like Alwar. Hence, they were highly dependent on the forest resources for fodder, obtained from trees like the Dhok (Anogeissus pendula), which was the principal tree found in Sariska. The reserve was segregated into core 1, core 2, core 3 (core 1 and core 2 regions being the habitat for the tigers and other wildlife species) and finally the buffer zone. Since 2006 when Sariska became a critical tiger habitat, the region has been an inviolate zone, devoid of human intervention. However, external bodies were able to gain access into these core regions and tourism was and is active in the core areas of the reserve since the relocation of the tigers from Ranthambore in 2004. Mining of silica sand, soapstone, iron, dolomite, marble and masonry stone also takes place in Thana Gazi and Rajgarh (Tehsils in and around the reserve). Nevertheless, claims against the community regarding the adverse effects of their practices on the land due to their â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ignoranceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; about conservation, have been raised and due to this, relocation of the villages is currently under progress.

A possible decline was observed in sand grouse (Pteroclididae) populations in Sariska due to change in vegetation following various water conservation measures, such as check-damming of streams. It is possible that patches of suitable riparian habitat in Sariska are now too fragmented to support a population of Hornbills. On a positive note, certain bird species such as the Indian Robin and Grey Francolin are encouraged and benefitted from habitat degradation. Due to abundance of livestock, Sariska makes an ideal vulture habitat. An example is Keoladeo National Park in Rajasthan where a bitterly contested ban on buffalo grazing inside the park has led to an overgrowth of weeds, choking the shallow water bodies and rendering them inhospitable for wintering geese, ducks, and teals for which the park is famous. It was essential to examine the impact of uncontrolled human pressures on wildlife, before proposing sustainable use models for conservation. The extent of biotic pressure by human populations had to be considered to understand the flawed rationality of co-existence7 . After much secondary research, the conclusion was reached that the degradation of the forest to a large extent, was caused by external intervening activities such as mining, temple sites and tourists rather than community-driven livestock grazing and biomass extraction.

G. Vishwanath Reddy. Lessons from two Local extinctions: Sariska and Kailadevi in Rajasthan, India.

Community Practices Conserving and revering Dev Bannis is a famous local practice. However, while in Haripura, a few differences in perceptions/understanding of Dev Bannis were noticed. Traditionally what is believed to be a shared area for resources was being looked at as a religious zone, where extracting fodder or forest produce was strictly prohibited. The Bheraon Baba ki banni, near the Lilunda village was built by the village elders, to keep away bad spirits around twenty years ago and the presence of a ‘higher spirit’ has created a sense of reverence for the forest. The forest around this is abundant with Adulsa (Adhathoda vasica) that has many medicinal purposes, and acts as a cure for cough and cold. Most villages had their own water source. In Haripura, by the initiative of Nanak Ram Gujjar, a small johad/pond was maintained near the village, which was used, by villagers, cattle and wild animals as a source of water. While building their shanties in the forest, Gujjars maintained that the timber being used was collected in small quantities from various parts of the forest, as opposed to clearing one single patch, hence avoiding its degradation.

CASE STUDIES Tiger Response Team During the research phase, many new case studies, not just from India, started to prop up. Some of these were similar to what was happening in STR (Man- tiger relation) and gave insights into possible routes to explore in finding a solution. Looking at examples of man- tiger relationships outside of India, both successful and failed attempts at reconciling the differences between the two right holders, offered a different perspective on the issue that exists within Sariska. The Amur Tiger situation in Russia has a lot to offer in deepening our understanding of this complex relationship and exploring new avenues to better said relation. The Amur Tiger, prior to the Soviet’s breakdown, experienced a huge boom in numbers, as restrictions present at the time were very strict and opposed poaching and hunting. But in the 1990’s, those restrictions came down and tiger numbers began to dwindle for various reasons (poaching due to falling economy and inflation, more people allowed into tiger habitat resulting in killings of tigers in ‘self defense’). In order to protect the tiger, policy makers adopted various means to at least limit if not ban poaching, while attempting to change local communities’ negative prejudices against the tiger. One of those attempts was the forming of the Tiger Response Team in 1999 by ‘Inspection Tiger’; a group of well-trained and armed inspectors set to patrol around Primorye- a tiger hot spot. The Tiger Response Team consisted of a few of these inspectors and conservationists whose mandate was to respond to ‘problem situations’ between tigers and people. Their goals were to eliminate the misconceptions people had about tigers by spreading awareness on tiger conservation, and also reduce tiger mortality due to conflicts with people, such as depredation of livestock and attacks on people.

The team was able to achieve the said goal quite effectively; by providing a mechanism by which local citizens can expect a rapid and official response to problem situations. There were fewer incidents where people resorted to resolving their problems ‘unofficially’. Although difficult to measure, the ability of the Tiger Response Team to reduce the perceived risk may have been its most important contribution in lowering human-caused tiger mortality.

Awareness As part of changing people’s impressions of tigers, it was important to also look at causes for the communities to fear or resent tigers. Although studies conducted showed a high number of Amur tiger related attacks in the 19th and early 20th century, there were no reports of tiger attacks in the Russian Far East from 1930 to 1976. Since then there have been 51 reports of tiger attacks, but upon closer examination, trends began to emerge in the data. For one, the probability of being killed by a tiger was identical (27%) for provoked and unprovoked attacks. This attack rate (1.4 attacks per year) and mortality rate (0.4 human deaths per year) was low in comparison to historical rates in Russia and elsewhere. In the Sundarbans, where man-killing tigers were most common, Hendrichs (1975) reported 24.3 deaths per year over a 15-year period. Adjusted for area (kills per 1000 km2 tiger habitat per year) the kill rate in the Sundarbans (6 kills per 1000 km2 per year) was two orders of magnitude greater than in the Russian Far East (0.01). In fact, in the past 30 years there have been only two reported incidents of an individual tiger killing more than one person. Man- eating tigers were uncommon because of various reasons; these tigers were usually hunted down immediately, also the low human density in that area doesn’t offer much opportunity to sick or lame tigers to attack people before succumbing to a natural death in the cold winters there. Although attacks are rare, local citizens, due to this high encounter rate, still view the tigers as a huge threat. Respondents in two separate surveys cited ‘danger to humans’ as the primary reason for not wanting to conserve tigers. Thus, the rare but well-publicized appearances of tigers near villages reinforced the perception of danger.

Depredation

Aravari Sansad

Great Himalayan National Park:

Nevertheless, tiger attacks and depredation were huge issues in the Russian Far East and steps taken by authorities there could serve as examples of effective models for policy makers to study in Sariska so as to help facilitate a healthy relationship with the community and tiger. After many attempts at compensating farmer’s losses due to depredation, in 1999 the Farmers’ Fund was formed. It was a legally registered non-governmental insurance and loan programme for farmers, who had to pay membership dues that served as insurance. Along with that, they could also apply for low interest loans. Based on the number of animals insured, the farmers paid from 500 to 4000 rubles (US$16 to $133), while the average value of cattle was approximately US$300 at the time. In 2000, five farmers joined the fund, in 2001 the umber dropped to four and in 2002, to three farmers. The dues collected (US$1150) in relation to the compensation given during those three years (five cases, US$1182), were not sufficient to sustain the fund. Reasons for the fund not being a sustainable long- term solution are as follows-

The Aravari Sansad or Aravari River parliament is a model case study for community-driven conservation of the forest resources. The Sansad laid down rules for the equitable access and sharing of the water collected from these Johads.

Alternative Model of Participatory Conservation

1. The concept of buying insurance at the time was completely new to the people since prior to the fall of the Soviet (1989), the state was in charge of compensation of such issues, Management/advertising of the fund was inadequate, 2. The risk of depredation is simply too low to justify the cost of 3. insurance.

Rajendra Singh, head of the Tarun Bharat Sangh at a checkdam.

While looking at participatory conservation in Sariska, it was imperative to look at past examples of how this concept has been advocated and been successful in bringing about positive change. One such example would be the Great Himalayan National Park that was officially notified in 1999. It’s closure caused a lot of stir among the local communities, primarily the graziers and medicinal plant collectors, as their source of livelihoods came from the resources within the park. But what came out of this was a surprising collaboration between park authorities and SAHARA; a local NGO that represented the social and economic needs of the communities there. This unusual alliance looked at women belonging to scheduled castes, preventing their marginalization and including them in the decision making process. To overcome this challenge they set up cohesive women’s savings and credit groups (WSCG’s) with training from SAHARA and the park authorities, micro credit-lending schemes have started based on group savings, thus reducing ‘caste-related’ priority that could have been an issue. This example demonstrates how a healthy collaboration between the authorities and the community can lead to positive social change within the community.

Original Image taken fromhttp://eartheasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/water-l.jpg

So although the fund wasn’t successful in achieving its long-term goal of sustainability, tiger killings due to depredation and retaliation significantly dropped, thus showing that the concept of a compensation fund can bring about positive change. Along with serving as a model to follow in our Sariska context, another plus point from this fund is the fact that tigers play a minimal role in depredation.

LAWS The Biodiversity Act, 2002 The 10th Chapter of the Biodiversity Act creates provision for local communities to manage their resources using local methods of conservation by forming Biodiversity Management Committee. This committee is important in terms of documenting the range of flora and fauna of that region, and conservation of Forest Habitat. It also encourages conservation of land races, folk varieties and cultivars and breeds of animals and hence local knowledge as a continuous process.

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 This bill is only applicable to revenue land and not forest land. This bill can be revised to address the relocation problems faced by communities relocated from forestland. A consensus has been reached on this bill in the parliament It addresses many of the implementation discrepancies in our current system, and its enactment is much awaited. Some points covered in this bill were quite relevant to the situation in Sariska, where relocation happens and the reality of the relocated villagers is quite appalling. They have forsaken their livelihood of being pastoralists in order to survive. The land is infertile, and isn’t suited to nurturing goats and buffaloes. Moreover, they have not been provided with the basic infrastructure- roads, schools, ration cards and dispensaries. Water came to them after having stayed there

for three years . These are the people who have been relocated, but their expectations haven’t been met. This bill can cater to their specific needs in the future, as it is more inclusive. For example, it gives an opportunity for Tribals and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers to redress the wrongs done to them as they are include in the category of “affected families” under section 3 (c) of the LARR bill 2011. This category even includes people whose livelihood has been supported by the land for 3 years prior to acquisition. The category further includes families whose primary source of livelihood is dependent upon forests or water bodies. They have included gatherers of forest produce, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen.

Helping the community to equip themselves legally, by explaining relevant laws, and facilitating them to create committes

Some villages such as Umri and Devri did not have a Gram Sabha

Written consent of Gram Sabha

Cannot resist relocation Inexperience in agriculture due to being traditional pastoralists

RELOCATION

Ensure water catchment areas,water bodies and ecologically sensitive areas are protected

Relocated Gujjars had to convert from being pastoralists to agriculturalists

Resettlement package to be prepared and communicated before relocation that secures livelihood

2.5 lakhs and 6 bighas of land

Shortage of water for agriculture and livestock purposes

Access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge

No resettlement until facilities and land alocation complete

PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY

Fair 10 lakhs and relocation no land

Forest Rights Act

Grazing (settled and transhumant)

Protect, regenerate and conserve any community forest resource traditionally being protected

Collect, use and dispose minor forest produce

Cattle grazed outside a certain boundary are confiscated by FD. Fine- Rs 500-1000

Regulate community forest resource use if any activity adversely affects wildlife and biodiversity

cows and buffaloes died because of no access to fodder

Facilities promised were not provided even 3 years post relocation. Roads, schools, dispensary, etc

No government assistance in securing livelihood

ACCESS RIGHTS

Some villages do not own pattas as they live on forest land, they use ration cards as proof of residence

Right to live and hold land under common occupation for habitation, i.e grazing livestock

Protect wildlife, biodiversity and forest

Dev Banis are destinations of worship besides being an inventory of indigenous tree species. Water catchment area and other water bodies

Practices such as the commercialisation of the Bhartri temple is leading to land degradaton.

Co-existence is not possible Could be interprepted as posing irrevocable damage to habitat of tiger and forest.

Maujpur villagers do not have a ration card for their new location3 years post relocation

Nistar

SECTIONS OF THE LAW APPLICABLE TO GUJJARS

SO WHAT?

RELOCATED VILLAGE MAUJPUR

INTACT VILLAGES HARIPURA AND LILUNDA

Water conservation for times of drought. Made for use of villagers and wild animals.

Relocated village Maujpur villagers do not own pattas as they have been relocated back on forest land

Conversion of Pattas to forest titles

Protect Forest dwellers from any destructive practices that will harm natural or cultural heritage

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH

Tools for collecting minor forest produce confiscated by FD. Fine- Rs 500-1000

OFFERING MAP

EMPOWERMENT

High start up costs and low yields from crops leave villagers in poverty Villagers of Maujpur did not recieve pattas during relocation. Strutck an oral deal with Forest Department. Tricked into relocation.

COMMUNITY FOREST RIGHTS

TENURIAL RIGHTS Said to lead to soil erosion and land degradation by Wildlife Protection Commitee

Danger posed by villagers in retaliation to atacking livestock

Claimed adverse effects on tiger and habitat casued by grazing

illegal occupants and evicted

Villagers do not look at Tigers as an enemy. Positive about eistence of tigers Direct threat to tigers

Spread diseases to tiger through common water bodies

ANALYSIS While analyzing the situation at Sariska, we looked at the various relationships between the different stakeholders, and found that there was a conflict of interest between the Forest Department and the forest dwelling communities. The forest department’s interests lay in preserving the forest, which meant that the community would lose its access rights to the forest and its resources. Upon further inspection, it was found that the community itself is divided in terms of what action it should take to best benefit everyone. This is due to the lack of representation of the minority (Meena scheduled tribe) in the Gram Sabha, which has led to a fissure within the community itself. The women and the youth were not factored into the entire conflict, and seem to be passive observers for the most part. Returning to the conflict between the forest department and the community, the relationship was one of disagreement and hostility. The forest department confiscated their livestock regularly as they trespassed into a certain area of the forest and the villagers were then required to pay a fine of Rs. 500 per animal to get them back. Villagers have also been arrested in the past under the allegations of ‘tiger poisoning’ and constant efforts were being made by the Forest Department to get the communities to relocate by trying to establish that they are a threat to the tiger and its habitat.

DESIGN TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS STAKEHOLDER MAP The Stakeholder Map explains the situation at hand through various stakeholders or right-holders that are affected or affect the situation. They are categorised as primary stakeholders that are directly related to the situation and secondary stakeholders that indirectly have effect. Their role is segregated as influence, interest and risks.

ISSUE CARDS GPS DATA overlayed with Google Earth feed

Prove visual aid to bring to light some of the key issues For eg: The community does not have an FRC.

SWOT ANALYSIS The SWOT analysis gauges the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of each village on the basis of 11 parameters namely: social, legal, political, economic, religious, ecological, geo spatial, awareness, livelihood, demographics and infrastructure. The colored bars show the volume of strength/weakness across all parameters, and inferences can be made on that analysed data. For example one major weakness in all the villages was a lack of awareness of the Forest Rights Act (2006). From this we realised that as designers our intervention could be in communicating the law to the community in more user friendly forms.

Villagers forced to relocate by the Forest Department

No voice for women

Over-grazing

Presence of a commercial temple inside the core area of Sariska National Park

No Forest Rights Committee to claim rights

Saffronisation of Devbannis

Giving locals a sense of empowerment

Opportunity to influence legal action and conflict resolution

Co-existence

Government support

Agenda: Community Driven Conservation

Economic power

Promoting the concept of Devbannis

BCP. Identifying Community Rights

Influence in political and social scenario Creating a microeconomy out of devotion and staunch belief

Resources for mining

Highlighting one issue over the many others that are existing

Politics of securing votes

Harming geography, ecology and land use patterns

Religion: a priority over ecology

Dealing with aspects purely within the legal arena

Commercialisation in Core Areas

INDUSTRY

KRAPAVIS NATURAL JUSTICE

TEMPLE AUTHORITY

SARISKA

TIGER RESERVE ALWAR, RAJASTHAN

A “critical tiger habitat” and how it affects the Forest Rights Act (2006)

GUJJARS

MEENAS

Authority and power;

Weak and unable to exercise rights

fear among locals Preserving forest by drawing boundaries and preventing human intervention Wooing locals into giving up

FOREST DEPARTMENT

FOREST DWELLING COMMUNITY NGO worker

NANAK RAM GUJJAR

Forest guard

HARI RAM GUJJAR

Livestock Grazing Individual Benefit

Relocation from the Reserve

land; fake promise of changing land category for use

Authority of the Forest Rights Committee Influence Risks Interest Alternate Identity

Secondary Stake Holders Primary StakeHolders

GRAM SABHA

STAKEHOLDER MAP: To show the stakeholders involved in the situation, with respect to their interests and influences in the system.

Securing community rights Misrepresentation of community needs

No caste system Affiliated to NGO No religious conflict

Awareness about FRA Awareness about Devbanniâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s being used as a weapon again relocation Awareness about relocation consequences

SWOT Analysis: Haripura

Situated around resources

Presence of women to form FRC

Voice of the youth

Youth not represented Women not involved

Man-made water sources

Women are suppresed

Water cultivation Traditional knowledge of surrounding areas

No electricity lines, gas No school, dispencaries

Sale from milk and goats

Dependence on livestock

Funding of Devbannis by BJP

No FRC. Constant pressure to move out of reserve.

Gateway to not being relocated

Oppose resettlement

Gram Panchayat is dictated by an older generation

Inefficiency in forming FRC

Saffronisation Newer, more permanent structure of Devbannis

Access to towns and cities

Mining of dolomite and marble

Employment in towns and citiesdue to accessibility

Pharmaceutical companies take advantage Over grazing of cattle

Social Political Religious Ecological Economic

Awareness about FRA Proff of violation of FRA by FD.

Do not know the extent of excersizing right

Geospatial Legal Awareness Demographics Livelihood Infrastructure

Self sustained Used goats as money bank Tiger Reimbursed for cattle consumed by tigers Livestock population growing

STRENGTHS

Not acknowledging hampering of habitat by livestock doubling

WEAKNESS

Vote bank Formation of FRC Resisting injustice by FD as per the FRA

Higher sale of milk products

OPPORTUNITY

Not being able to convert to SC They do not have an FRC Minimum application of the FRA

Threatened by tiger

THREATS

Skewed sex ratio; older men are more influential

Lack of communication with the Meenas

Divide amongst all relocated villages

No FRC; oral promises; no evidence

Fertile to fallow land

SWOT Analysis: UMARI

Gujjar unity

Hindu Religion

No school, ration card, no discrepency, no roads, no water Fallow land, no water source

Social Political

5 - 7 bore wells

No money or services

Religious

Jobs for youth as labour in town/city

Communication

To get rights through political parties

Can claim rights

Revenue Dept Issues; No opportunity for infrastructure Possible to make soil fertile

Vicinity to the town

to get rights through political parties

May not get rights: Forest Dept. vs Revenue Dept. Clashes with other villages

Clash with Umari

No human rights given

Relocation was the biggest threat to their livelihood Infertile Land, Water Shortage

Complete loss of livelihood

Ecological Economic Geospatial

Habitat documents by villagers

No pattas or FRC

Old ration cards combining Meena and Gujjar cases

Eviction

Legal Awareness Demographics Livelihood Infrastructure

Mustard cultivation

Pastoralists pushed into agriculture; minimum pay; cattle dead

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

Labour, farming

OPPORTUNITY

No FRC; women and men have different wants

THREATS

Female minority

People easily wooed

SWOT Analysis: Devri

Majority of middle aged men

Schedule Tribe status

Some knowledge of FRA

Eventual representation of women’s needs

Women’s needs being ignored

Muslim minority

Communication with Umari

Not enough knowledge of FRA

Opportunity for co-existence with Umari

Conversion to another religion

Fight for Human Rights

Displacement

Infertile land

No school, dispensary, roads, electricity

Fallow land

Connection to cities/towns

Hopefully more facilities to benefit them in future

Clashes with Umari

Government does nothing; charge more money; displace them again

Water shortage

Social Political Religious

Water source

Loss of livelihood and livestock

New jobs in city/town

Can’t buy things from Fair Price Shops

Wheat; mustard cultuvation

Lack of communication with Umari (other relocated village)

Devri and Umari co-operation; Human rights case

ForestDepartment and Revenue Department control the people

Have some documents regarding legal transactions

No FRC, ration cards, pattas no evidence

Ecological Economic Geospatial Legal Awareness Demographics Livelihood

Adhikar Patra; combining cases with Umari

Eviction; displacement

Infrastructure Wheat; mustard

Infertile land

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

Labour

OPPORTUNITY

Dying livestock

THREATS

Environmentalists VS Social Scientists There was a lot of ideological conflict between environmentalists and social scientists regarding the presence of communities in protected areas. There were clear, sharp differences between the dominant cultures in the practice of conservation, represented by biologists on the one hand, and social scientists on the other. Biologists mostly focused on the impacts of differing kinds of human use of the ecosystem, with species and ecosystems at the epicenter. Social scientists had largely examined process and pattern of conservation-induced displacement of communities and the resultant impoverishment of cultures and livelihoods8. It is understandable that forest dwelling communities would want to be able to assert their rights over resources, but one can’t keep ignoring the adverse effects they could have on the ecology. Social scientists and biologists must be well informed about consequences of land use and rights, across disciplines to create a practical and viable scenario of coexistence. While it is important to acknowledge the community practices that have prevailed for years, it is also essential to question the resource exploitation and its chances of jeopardizing sensitive species that can be conserved best only in such protected areas. While the local communities were held largely responsible for degradation of the ecosystem, they did not condone practices with the intention of doing so.

Rangarajan, M. Shahabuddin G. ‘Displacement and Relocation from Protected Areas: Towards a Biological and Historical Synthesis’. 2/20

Their knowledge of conservation was limited only to their day-to-day survival needs. They remain inconversant to the adverse impact that some of their activities have (such as illegal collection of timber and overgrazing of cattle) on the habitat of the tiger and the ecosystem.

Conservatory Practices Stating that they only cause harm and did not conserve at all would be a naïve claim to make. Time spent at the village Haripura, brought to light some of their practices that demonstrate concern for the welfare of the wild animals. They practiced water cultivation to tend to their needs and during times of drought, the local community would engineer canals to provide water to the animals from their wells. Another example was the community’s propagation of their sacred groves, Dev Banis or Orans that are clumps of forest maintained by the local community9 . They were an inventory of rich biodiversity apart from being a place of worship and houses various different types of tree species, some being bamboo, kala khair, and gugal. There were also repositories of bulbous plants, used for medicinal purposes.

Giving, Global. “Krishi Avam Paristhitiki Vikas Sansthan (KRAPAVIS).” N.p., n.d

NGO: KRAPAVIS (Krishi Avam Paaristhitiki Vikas Sansthaan) The NGO KRAPAVIS (Krishi Avam Paaristhitiki Vikas Sansthaan) works with the Gujjar community inside the reserve and advocates sustainable agriculture and ecology-based practices. One of their main interests is centered on the community practice of nurturing sacred groves that are locally called Orans. These Orans encompass an inviolate zone of indigenous tree species like Dhok, salar, dhak, khair, kadaya, gol, ber, gargad, arjun, gugal etc. These spaces are treated as religious and are called Kakad Bannis, Rakht Bannis and Dev Bannis . Kakad Bannis are on the border of two villages. Rakht Bannis belong to a single village while Dev Bannis are dedicated to a particular God, village-wise. This community practice tends to preserve many species or birds, animals, insects and trees and is a traditional conservation method. Dev Bannis have managed to become the ‘identity’ of these forest dwellers. For them, these Dev Bannis serve the purposes of providing fodder and water for livestock, a resting place for them and a source of ethno-veterinary resources. These areas are believed to have their own water source such as a spring, pond, johad etc. Mr. Aman Singh heads the NGO. KRAPAVIS aims to help them recognize and articulate their rights, through the FRA in order to continue inhabiting the STR. The importance of Dev Bannis, both as a cultural and traditional landmark for the villagers and as a means of conservation has also been stressed upon to resist relocation. Dev Bannis, initially resting spots for sages travelling through the forest, are sacred groves constructed by the community to propagate the growth of various plant species. The very fact that the community is in charge of its construction could be seen as a potential risk for alienation, with respect to the other communities. For instance, if the Gujjars were to use Dev Bannis as a justification for them being in the reserve, the rights gained would only be applicable to them and not the Meena community. Another criticism made about the Dev Bannis was the fact that the community leaders and elders have a certain definition of Dev Bannis that differs from that of the NGO’s.

The NGO explains that these are zones from which the community derives its sources of livelihood, whereas primary data suggests that these groves are inviolate zones and are not used for cattle grazing. Moreover, the importance of Dev Bannis, along with it’s definition, is not only contradicted by the NGO’s and the community leaders, but also the villagers within the community itself, primarily the women and youth, who believe that a Dev Banni is the shrine as opposed to the entire area within which it rests. It may be observed that the popularization of Dev Bannis is a way of the community to mark the area as their own, to establish the fact that they are an integral part of the ecosystem and seems like an eager attempt to resist relocation. Now, relocation was effected by the government for all the villages within the core regions of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, as it was often believed that the activities of the local villagers were leading to degradation of the tiger’s habitat. Those ‘activities’ included their agricultural practices and livestock grazing which according to popular belief, did not co-exist with forests; “i.e. grazing in the reserve that depletes water resources and induces soil erosion, and timber collection decreases forest density and cover, and leads to irregularity in tree growth.” 10 The possibility of poaching tigers by local villagers was also considered a threat.

Bhairu Devbanni in Lilunda village

Giving, Global. “Krishi Avam Paristhitiki Vikas Sansthan (KRAPAVIS).” N.p., n.d

Threats to the community The villagers were unaware of any means to avoid forcible relocation. Their knowledge about the Forest Rights Act, 2006 was minimal and they did not have a Forest Rights Committee set up within the villages. This is primarily because of isolation from the various policies that were being implemented around them. Another cause could have resulted from their distrust towards outsiders. The constant inability of so-called outside help to deliver meaningful solutions to the community’s problems was most likely to have been the cause of this negative predisposition. It was noticed that there was a certain level of reluctance on their part to share papers and personal information for the fear of exploitation. Sometimes the reluctance would go further and villagers, especially the women would shy away from the opportunity of talking to outsiders. Once we were able to bridge this divide, the women of the community had other concerns and were not as politically involved in the scenario as the men (with the exception of Lilunda). The inequality was evident, as sometimes the women of the family were against relocation and the men made the decision regardless. The women of the communities practiced the custom of pardah (They were not allowed to talk to other men, and were socially cloistered). This clear divide caused a bias in favor of the men, and the question arose whether their needs were being adequately represented or not. In addition, the Gujjar communities share a strained relationship with the Forest Department. This was evident by their animosity over their confiscated cattle and tools for collecting minor forest produce at a large fine and the persuasiveness of the forest department to relocate. It was reported by the villagers of Haripura that one of the villagers had been arrested as well.

Tourism as a threat Tourism is a major industry that affects the ecology and balance massively. Temples such as the Bhartri Temple are results of encouragement of this industry to generate income. This leads to cutting trees for timber illegally to use around the temple premises and littering. Noise and land pollution in the core zone of a protected area violate many sensibilities. Tourists and all related activities are highly unacceptable and harmful to a critical wildlife habitat. Government policies regarding conservation seemed to exclude these communities from the environment while economic and developmental activities, like the ones mentioned above, and their impact on the land, were not taken into consideration. The economic benefit clearly was a factor in the selective format in which access to the reserve is denied to certain groups. There have been reasons in the past to believe that poachers entered the tiger reserve through tourism, according to Rajendra Singh, water conservationist. The entire population seemed to have become extinct primarily because of poaching’ the Rajya Sabha was informed in the first week of May 2005 by Namo Narain Meena, Minister of State for Forests.11 ‘The ease with which tigers could be killed, along with the low risk of being prosecuted, encouraged poachers, according to wildlife filmmaker Sekhar Dattani, The trend of ‘wildlife trophies’ became a hazard to tigers all over India. On February 1, 2005 the Delhi police confiscated 39 leopard skins, 2 tiger skins, 3 kg’s of tiger claws and 42 other skins from a warehouse.12 Between 2002-2004, proof of poachers was found after the death of 10 tigers in the Tiger Reserve. The government has recognized a poacher route extending from New Delhi to Nepal, Lhasa and China. ‘First it must be recognized by everyone that there is no substitute for good protection. An organized and well-connected mafia is involved in poaching. Punishment must be severe and swift, states Dattani.

However, blame on the villagers for the extinction of the tigers remains strong. According to statements made by Haripura Gujjars, a villager was arrested with the charge of poisoning a tiger, the motive being acting in retaliation to one of his cattle becoming prey to the tiger. The villagers however, denied these charges, claiming the tiger for them was auspicious as they associate the tiger with the end of a long drought. The existence of the tiger in the reserve provides them with security from outsiders who do not enter their domain in fear of the wild cat. It also successfully prevents an epidemic as it chooses the sickest or the weakest of the cattle as its prey, according to a villager in Lilunda, whose identity remains undisclosed. Rajendra Singh supports the villagers as he claims that the local communities have always protected the forests and co-existence is possible between the local community and the ecosystem.13 Mining activities also posed a danger to the habitat, and although they have been banned since 1991, 32 illegal mining projects continue around Sariska, according to Mahendra Singh Kachchawa, additional counsel to wildlife and forests, government of India.14 The functioning of a marble quarry lobby is backed by political tycoons who do not want tigers there. ‘Mine operators do not want tigers as that would mean more vigilance,’ he added, explaining how illegal mining threatens the tiger’s safety.

”Advantage Tiger Country Conference Brings out Divergent Views.” The Times Of

“Spot the Tiger.” (n.d.): n. pag. Print.

India. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 14

Endangered in Sariska.” (n.d.): n. pag. Print.

(core area) Source Maps: District Environmental Atlas, Alwar, 2009 Environmental Master Plan, Alwar District, May 1992

Threats to the ecosystem A likely cause for concern would be the tourism industry and poaching. Studies and news articles show them to be a more relevant threat to the ecosystem as opposed to the practices of the local community. While one argument is that tiger tourism is important to educate and sensitize the masses about conservational methods, the flipside is that tourism contributes to tiger extinction as it depletes the habitat of the wild cat and opens doorways to poachers. Various viewpoints on the importance of tourism were revealed at the Advantage Tiger Country Conference on February 13, 2013. ‘Tourism is the single most important thing which is protecting wildlife today’ claimed Praveen Pardeshi, the principal secretary of forests, government of Maharashtra15 . He stated that relocation must take place and farming cannot co-exist with the forests. His claim was supported further by Nishikant Mukherjee who believed that tourism would boost the economy of the region, while bringing in more funds for conservation activities that will benefit the locals. ‘Wildlife tourism is the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry which is second to the oil industry and we must harness it’ 16 . Tourism has increased in Sariska by 50-60% according to Times of India after the relocation of the tigers from Ranthambore. However, news sources reported adverse effects of tourism on the tiger reserve. Heavy traffic dissects the sanctuary and it creates noise and air pollution. ‘All night loaded trucks make a thundering noise driving through as there are big potholes in the seven-km stretch and it is a threat to the big cat’17 , says a forest guard. Tourism also puts a strain on resources like water. The demand for meat used as bait to lure tigers also leads to depletion of small wildlife, according to Valmik Thapar, tiger expert. Besides that, new properties have been lined up with hoteliers and real estate developers, with plans of hopeful development contributing to the tourism industry.18 ‘Powerful marketing and infrastructure is the need of the hour’, states Nishikant Mukherjee at the Advantage Tiger Country Conference.

The Times Of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ city/nagpur/Advantage-Tiger-Country-Conference-brings-out-divergent-views/articleshow/18665825.cms>. 16 “Sariska Is Ranthambore in the Making.” The Times Of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 15

Activities such as mining and poaching were known to have an impact on the depletion of the tiger’s habitat as well. Industrial areas function in the core area of the STR, along with the buffer zone, preliminary and adjoining areas. The demand for tiger skins and body parts also made tourism a threat in Sariska, according to wildlife film maker Dattari Sekha. Although the claims of tourism encouraging wildlife conservation are valid, places inhabited by tigers that remain isolated from the throng of tourists have the largest number of tiger population, places such as the northeastern hills. Outside of the community and the forest department, our research showed us that minerals and the land that the community resides on, is one of unique importance. The minerals available in the Sariska Tiger Reserve area along with adjoining areas as follows1. Iron 2. Dolomite 3. Chert Masonry Stone 4. 5. Quartz Silica Sand 6. 7. Marble 8. Granite Soap Stone 9.

- The Rajgarh Industrial Area and its extension in Rajgarh Tehsil. Carries out the mining of silica sand, masonry stone, soapstone and marble. The core area in STR and some preliminary notified areas fall under this Tehsil. Proposed sites for mining of marble are Mallama Gordhanpura and Tilwad and are near the preliminary notified areas.

These were the specific industrial areas that fall under STR but many more sites exist on forestland as well. These are the details of the mining activities that take place near STR. The Environmental Master Plan for Alwar district even proposes alternative sites for mining but some of these sites are close to STR as well. The fact that mining is condoned on forestland and near the STR is a clear example of how the authorities view land as an opportunity for the economy. The priority is given to industries because they generate income and employment, while keeping the environmental and social concerns on the back burner.

- The Matsya Industrial Area and Old Industrial Area in Tehsil, Alwar fall in the buffer zone of STR and engage in the mining of Silica sand, Soap stone and Masonry stone.19 -The Thana Ghazi Industrial Area, comprising of the core area of STR along with adjoining and preliminary notified areas. Mining of soapstone, iron, dolomite and marble. - There are masonry stone mines in Bansur Tehsil. Adjoining areas of STR fall under this Tehsil. Mundli is a proposed site, which falls at the edge of the STR

“Valmik Thapar Calls for Review of Tourism Ban Recommendation in Core Tiger Areas.” The Times Of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 18 “Advantage Tiger Country Conference Brings out Divergent Views.” The Times Of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. 17

6.4.1 Tehsil Alwar A. existing environmental scenario, EX SM-XIV, Environmental Master Plan for Alwar district. 19

Source Maps: District Environmental Atlas, Alwar, 2009 Environmental Master Plan, Alwar District, May 1992

DESIGN INTERVENTION

Goals To delve into a situation of such complexity is a challenge. We primarily wish to take up the role of communicators in the hope that the situation will become easier by creating opportunity for dialogue between the various actors. At the same time, the material will serve as a tool for informative interaction between NGOs, villagers and legal authorities. This project being intensive, the goals were divided our goals into short term (weekly), mid term (final outcome), long term (future semesters).

Communication Tool Kit Target Audience- NGO workers, paralegals, lawyers, and community members This will serve as an aid for the target audience in communicating the conservatory practices the community presently uses, and also other possible practices they could adopt in the future. It will have details about the Forest Rights Act (2006) pertaining to their situation, the necessary steps needed to create the Forest Rights Committee and an overall explanation of the process for claiming rights the community would need to carry out.

Short Term (Weekly) Goals: These included analysis of primary data, collection of secondary data, comprehensive representations of the analysis, which would come together in an organized project report. Mid Term Goals (Final Outcome): After intensely examining issues surrounding the Sariska Tiger Reserve, the outcomes would be finalized and target two specific audiences. The first category will comprise of NGOs, paralegals, lawyers and the community. The second target audience will be the forest department. Long Term Goals: The analysis can become more layered, and as a tangible future outcome the info graph can become animated. The communication tool kit can be implemented and appropriately reworked according to the findings of its functionality in the field. In the long term it can be used as a tool in similar scenarios.

Components There will be stick puppets and a map on which these puppets play/act out various options or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;next stepsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the community has. The goal behind the map is to help the Gujjars understand the function and hierarchy of the various administrative departments. These include State Level Monitoring Committee, District Level Committee, Sub- Divisional Level Committee and the Gram Sabha. The purpose behind the use of this tool is to aid the communication process, and to make it engaging and interesting as well. Also, the puppets will lead into the rest of the tool kit i.e. the infograph. The Forest Rights Act will be explained through an info graphic, situationspecific to Sariska. The process of creating the Forest Rights Committee and its importance will be emphasized through it. It will be similar to an action plan to be carried out with and by the community. There will be placards, which aid in the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recognition and claiming of rights within the sections of the FRA found applicable to their unique context. They contain visuals, graphics and text that also work hand in hand with the infograph, thus making it an interactive experience. They will help highlight the importance of evidence in the rights claiming process and also, provide examples of beneficial ecological practices. This way of engaging the community is designed with the hope that the Gujjurs will acknowledge the environment, work along side it and by doing so, be able to justify their role in the conservation of the ecosystem by categorizing rights and responsibilities. All these components will come together in the Communication Tool Kit.

The process of Design Intervention begain with the activity of cognitive mapping with the Community mumbers to see their understand of their own village. This is a map of the Haripura village made by the Gujjars in January 2013.

NEXT STEP S It would be unfortunate if the work for this project were to stop here because there is a lot more potential for the components of the tool kit that we would like seen worked and improved on by those taking up the project after us. Due to the time constraint, a lot of the primary data collected on the trip, such as the audio recordings and the video footage, were not transcribed and remain a huge wealth of data waiting to be unpacked. Other improvements that could not be implemented for the same reason include making the infograph, flow chart and script for the puppet show bilingual, visiting the community again to see theirs and the paralegal’s reactions to the tool kit and then incorporate the feedback into the tool kit. A second tool kit for the Forest Department was part of the initial goals that due to the time constraint got pushed into long-term goals for the project. Nevertheless, the components of the kit included an infograph, designed to inform the Forest Department about the community as a part of the ecosystem. It would also include information regarding adverse effects of miss- implementation of relocation and resettlement measures taken by the Forest Department. Another component within the tool kit would have been the show reel and viewfinder that together, showed the story of the Gujjars and Sariska through an illustrated storyboard. The goal behind the show reel would have been to try and cultivate a sense of empathy towards the Gujjars that could possibly lead to civil exchanges between the two rights holders and hope for reaching a mutual resolve to their problems.

One of the big, possible changes that could be made to the puppet show would be to make it more interactive for the community and have them, using the law, find solutions to their problems. To start with, various routes would be marked out on the map, each with multiple forks in it. The Gujjurs themselves, would act out the show using the script and puppets and at each fork, they would randomly pick ‘Official Puppets’ and place them at the fork. Each one of these Official Puppets would have a scenario associated with them (speech bubbles) and it would then be the Gujjar’s task to assert a right available to them under the various acts and policies in order to get passed the official (Referring to the infograph). With each choice, the Gujjar would move forward until they reached another fork, where a new official and scenario would be waiting. By engaging the community in this manner, the hope is to help get them to shed their fear of the law and use the various policies to their advantage, while also instilling within them a sense of empowerment. The script for the puppet theatre activity has three scenarios as of now, and there is a potential to include more scenarios in future. For example: The base map for the puppet theatre has a space demarcated for the Biodiversity Management Committe and Court. There could be two more scenarios regarding the creation of the BMC and a possibility of an NGO filing a Public Interest Litigation in Court.

Report by Team Sariska LED Lab (Law, Environment and Design Laboratory) Srishti School of Art Design and Technology Bangalore

April 2013

LOGO DESIGN LED LAB