Although mining induced displacement is rampant in Odisha now, at the same time Conservation induced displacement has been taking its toll in the Protected areas. The issue is not much highlighted as that of the industrial displacement. The presentation has tried to highlight case study of post displacement situation (R & R colony).

1. Conservation induced displacement in
Simlipal: A case study on Kapanda
Banbasa & Ambadiha resettlement
colonies
Madhulika Sahoo
madhulika.sahoo@hotmail.co.uk
International Conference on Resettlement and Rehabilitation Xavier Institute of
Management Bhubaneswar
10-12th April 2012

2. Conservation Induced displacement
• Policies assumed protected areas can be maintained
without people, they do not recognized the importance of
local management and land use practices in sustaining &
protecting bio-diversity (Chatty 2008).
• The case of Yellowstone National park and armies &
colonial police forces in Latin America, Africa, Asia exclude
local communities from protected areas
• Forced removal & compulsory resettlement, inadequate
sustainable livelihood commonly practice
• Frequent mediation by NGOs & Govt. providing attractive
compensation.
• 1994 World Conservation Union ‘Indigenous may own &
manage protected area’ (IUCN 1994)

3. Experiencing displacement in PAs India
• National Tiger Conservation Authority ‘To carry out
village relocation from notified core area, in compliance
of the relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972’
• WPA, 1972, requirements have been laid down for
voluntary relocation of people on mutually agreed terms
and conditions.
• Relocation were experienced from different PAs in India
and many did not involve long-term follow up on post
relocation.
• There is limited understanding of the social &
environmental injustice issues, and impacts that
relocation has on the lives of people (Rangarajan and
Shahabuddin, 2006; Karanth and Karanth, 2007)
• Relocation in Chandaka-Dampara wildlife Sanctuary &
Simlipal Tiger reserve Odisha

4. Sources: Lasgorceix, A. & Kothari, A. (2009) Displacement & relocation of protected areas : A synthesis & analysis of case studies, Economic & Political weekly, Vol XLIV No 49

5. Simlipal Tiger Reserve
• Simlipal Tiger Reserve is situated in the Mayurbhanj
District of Northern Odisha, India
• 2,750 sq.Kms in area, 270km from Bhubaneswer,
legendry waterfalls, varied forest types and wildlife
sources: http://www.indiawildliferesorts.com/national-parks/simlipal-tiger-reserve.html
The findings are based on the observation & interview with the relocated population and secondary information, during the field work done for the FRA
research study in collaboration with Vasundhara & SCSTRI, Bhubaneswar

6. Growing concern of relocation in Simlipal
• The Simlipal Reserve Forest was notified as proposed
Sanctuary on 3rd Dec 1979, followed by national park on 6th
August 1980 in the intention to provide an inviolate space for
the wildlife
• Core Area (1,194.75 sq km) four villages namely Jenabil,
Jamunagarh, Kabatghai & Bakua were encouraged to relocate
Village name Year Families Families More to be
Relocated to Relocated to relocated
Kapanda Ambadiha
Jamunagarh 1994 11 - 23
Jenabil 1998 - 23 -
2010 - 61
Kabataghaie 1994 30 - 20
2003 - 8
Bakua - - - -
Sources: Simlipal Tiger Reserve Office

7. • No relocation from Bakua, the villagers didn’t
gave the consent.
• Community Forest Right of Jenabil has not been
recognized as per the Act
• Individual & CFR has not yet been recognized in
Jamunagarh, Kabataghaie & Bakua village
• Frequent pressure of relocation.
• Villages in poor socio-economic, lack of education
& health facilities.
• Govt. facilities not provided in the core area
villages.
• Constant suspect to the villagers for wildlife
poaching
• 2011 Tribal movement in Simlipal demanding rights

8. Kapanda Banbasa resettlement colony
• Situated in Jashipur block, Matiagarh GP 5km from
Jashipur
• 41 Khadia tribals voluntarily relocated from
Jamunagarh & Kabataghaie core area village in 1994.
Sources: Photos clicked at Kapada Banabasa colony during the field work in Simlipal

9. Comparison of Resettlement & Rehabilitation
Post 1994 situation Post 2010 situation
• R & R provided by the Govt. • The houses are in bad condition
were not as per the promise now, no further repairing.
made • No safe drinking water facilities,
• Provided less sustainable a half dug pond no water, no
constructed houses, primary health facilities
school at host • Manual labour wages are paid
village, maintenance package lesser than it should be
of Rs 6000/- for 13 months • No secured livelihood, No
• CFR recognized not as per the agricultural land & no forest
Act. No NTFP available resources available, walk 50km
to get the forest produce
• No secured livelihood, no
forest resources, no • Some villagers found
fulfillment of the facilities. traumatized of losing original
land
• No cooperation from the host • Not much awareness on Govt.
revenue village, sense of facilities
belonging in the villagers

10. Ambadiha Resettlement colony
• Colony situated in Udala block, 50km from original
village
• Total 92HH involuntarily relocated from Kabataghaie
Jamunagarh & Jenabil core area village in the year
1998, 2003 & 2010. (Only the Jenabil relocated in
2010 was studied).
Sources: Photo clicked at Amabdiha colony during the field visit

11. Comparison of Resettlement & Rehabilitation
Situation in 2010 Situation in 2012
• Homestead & agricultural 2.80 ac
• Relocation Violating FRA in land to 20 families (option-II) not
March 2010 satisfied
• Shifted to tin roof house in hot • No 10lakh amount given to 19
summer families (option-I) no land
available to purchase.
• No drinking water and health • Poorer quality of grassland &
facilities at resettlement colony agricultural land ,Govt. has no land
• No secured livelihood, no forest • No livelihood option, no safe
resources available. drinking water facilities, no forest
resources, no land for cultivation
• One reported death in the colony
2010 (sources: Vasundhara) • No access to bank accounts, no
settlement of forest right.
• One time food provided by the • More pressure on available
Govt. stopped after some days resources
• Less cooperation from host • Villagers demanding land
village due to mix community development, livelihood & other
development facilities.
• Language was a barrier

12. Impact of displacement
Distorted
from
traditional
practices Accesstless
Negative ness
attitude
towards
Govt.
Relocation Food
from PA insecurity
Seasonal
migration
Joblessness
Landlessness

13. Suggestion
• Follow legal mandates- Vesting of forest rights under FRA
• Transparency- On expenditure of the R & R package &
access to bank details
• Providing livelihood options- Training, occupation, market
• Basic Infrastructure-Agricultural land, water
facilities, houses, market linkage, common property
resources
• Trust- Grievance redressal & executing R & R plan in time
• Coping-New place, people & culture (stay intact with their
own traditional practices)
• Monitoring- Tracking, data base, process documentation
• Coexistence-E.g. Proposal in Rajaji National park, UP the
tribals will be key actors to design & implement the
management plan
• Sustainable livelihood- Through market linkage of the NTFP
in Simlipal