Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 97–109 | Cite as

Power asymmetries and institutions: landscape conservation in central India

Original Article

Abstract

This article argues for revisiting the institutional architecture of wildlife conservation in light of two recent trends: Increased popularity of landscape-level approaches and the recognition that conservation interventions must address longstanding questions of forest and land rights of local residents. The inquiry draws upon primary research conducted in Kanha National Park and Tiger Reserve, which is world renowned for its rich flora and fauna, but is also the site of a longstanding struggle over land rights of Adivasis, India’s indigenous people. The institutional landscape of contemporary wildlife conservation regimes, this article shows, is a product of the interlocking of socioeconomic inequalities and the dominant models of wildlife conservation. The analysis presented here follows a political economy of institutions approach, which underlines how the social, economic, and political contexts shape institutional outcomes. Findings from this analysis will inform the proposals for transformational institutional interventions aimed to meet the triple bottom line of social justice, broad-based economic development, and ecological stewardship.

Keywords

Landscape conservation Institutions Institutional change Property rights Political economy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The fieldwork in the summer of 2005 was conducted as part of a research project on environmental governance supported by Lead India. The author gratefully acknowledges the inputs from Jill Carr-Harris and the hospitality of rural residents and the elected representatives in Mandla.

References

  1. Adams W, Hutton J (2007) People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Soc 5(2):147–183Google Scholar
  2. Anon (2007a) Forced Evictions Target Adivasi. Amnesty International. http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/1160/
  3. Anon (2007b) Identifying critical wildlife habitats not legal: official. November 26, 2007. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/identifying-critical-wildlife-habitats-not-legal-official/article1955608.ece
  4. Anon (2010a) Project tiger guidelines for execution of the project by the states. (J-11025/1/72-FRY(WLF)/Dated 4.1.1974). New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Anon (2010b) Compendium of Guidelines/Advisories/Gazette Notification. New Delhi: National Tiger Conservation Authority. https://projecttiger.nic.in/WriteReadData/PublicationFile/Compendium.pdf
  6. Anon (2015) Tribals evicted from Kanha Tiger Reserve must be allowed to return to their forest homes: rights group. The Economic Times. January 15, 2015. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/tribals-evicted-from-kanha-tiger-reserve-must-be-allowed-to-return-to-their-forest-homes-rights-group/articleshow/45897969.cms
  7. Awasthi K (2008) Privilege motion against forest secretary. Down to Earth. April 30, 2008. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/privilege-motion-against-forest-secretary-4513
  8. Barry D, Larson AM, Colfer CJP (2010) Forest tenure reform: an orphan with many uncles. In: Larson AM, Barry D, Dahal GR, Colfer CJP (eds) Forests for people: community rights and forest tenure reform, Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumann P (1998) The persistence of populism in Indian Forest Policy. J Peasant Stud 25:96–123. doi: 10.1080/03066159808438685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baviskar A (2003) States, communities and conservation: the practice of ecodevelopment in the Great Himalayan National Park. In: Rangarajan M, Saberwal V (eds) Battles over nature. Science and the politics of conservation. Permanent Black, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  11. Bijoy CR (2011) The Great Indian tiger show. Econ Polit Wkly 46(4):36–41Google Scholar
  12. Bray DB, Duran E, Ramos VH, Mas J-F, Velazquez A, McNab RB, Barry D, Radachowsky J (2008). Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecol Soc 13:56. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art56/
  13. Chauhan JS (2014) "Conservation in Kanha Pench landscape." Keynote address at the Kanha-Pench landscape symposium: advancing the conversation on conservation, Mocha Village, Kanha Tiger Reserve, February 16–18, 2014Google Scholar
  14. Colfer CJP (2011) Marginalized forest peoples’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: an exploration. World Dev 39(12):2147–2164. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeFries R, Rosenzweig C (2010) Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(46):19627–19632. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011163107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl 15(1):19–26. doi: 10.1890/03-5258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dryzek JS (2013) The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Fay D, James D (2009) The rights and wrongs of land restitution: ‘restoring what was ours’. Routledge, CavendishGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleischman F (2015) Understanding India’s Forest Bureaucracy: a review. Reg Environ Change, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0844-8
  20. Gaikwad V (1995) Tribal and the Tiger: a case study of the Kanha National Park. Centre for Managament in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, AhmedabadGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghanekar NM (2015) Ken-Betwa river linking project will hamper tigers in Panna, says former director of project tiger. Daily News and Analysis, New Delhi. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ken-betwa-river-linking-project-will-hamper-tigers-in-panna-says-former-director-of-project-tiger-2141044
  22. GOI (2006) The scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. In: No. 2 of 2007. New Delhi: The Gazette of India; Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Haeuber R (1993) Indian forestry policy in two eras: continuity or change? Environ Hist Rev 17(1):49. doi: 10.2307/3984890 Google Scholar
  24. Hirsch PD, Brosius JP, O’Connor S, Zia A, Welch-Devine M, Dammert JL, Songorwa A, Trung TC, Rice JL, Anderson ZR, Hitchner S, Schelhas J, McShane TO (2013) Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: an integrative framework. Issues Interdiscip Stud 31:99–122Google Scholar
  25. Jain A (2012) Rumble in the jungle. Outlook Traveller. September 1, 2012. http://www.outlooktraveller.com/trips/rumble-in-the-jungle-1005253
  26. Jayal NG (2001) Balancing political and ecological values. Environ Polit 10(1):65–88. doi: 10.1080/714000508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jena J, Borah J, Dave C, Vattakaven J (2014) Lifeline for tigers: status and conservation of the Kanha–Pench Corridor. WWF-India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  28. Jha S, Sethi N (2014) Ken-Betwa rive link to hit Panna Tiger Reserve. Business Standard. August 23, 2014. New Delhi. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ken-betwa-river-link-to-hit-panna-tiger-reserve-114082300811_1.html
  29. Jhala YV, Qureshi Q, Gopal R, Sinha PR (2011) Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India, 2010, vol 2011/003. National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. Karanth KU (2005) Reconciling conservation with emancipatory politics. Econ Polit Wkly, 40(46), 4803–4805. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417385
  31. Karanth KK, DeFries R (2011) Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: new challenges for park management. Conserv Lett 4:137–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00154.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karanth KK, DeFries R, Srivathsa A, Sankaraman V (2012) Wildlife tourists in India’s emerging economy: potential for a conservation constituency? Oryx 46(03):382–390. doi: 10.1017/S003060531100086X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kashwan P (2013) The politics of rights-based approaches in conservation. Land Use Policy 31:613–626. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kashwan P (2015) Forest policy, institutions, and REDD+ in India, Tanzania, and Mexico. Global Environ Polit 15:95–117. doi: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaur N (2002) Tribal rights: targeting Tribal people. Frontline 19(21). http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1921/stories/20021025005603100.htm
  36. Knight J (1992) Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kothari A, Pathak N, Bose A (2011) Forests, rights and conservation: FRA Act 2006, India. In: Scheyvens H (ed) Critical review of selected forest-related regulatory initiatives: applying a rights perspective. Japan, Institute for Global Environmental StrategiesGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumar K, Kerr JM (2012) Democratic assertions: the making of India’s recognition of forest rights act. Dev Change 43(3):751–771. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01777.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lasgorceix A, Kothari A (2009) Displacement and relocation of protected areas: a synthesis and analysis of case studies. Econ Polit Wkly 44(49):37–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663860
  40. Mahapatra D (2012) MoEF takes a U-turn on tourism ban in core of tiger reserves. The Times of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  41. Mishra A (2012) Conservationists have tourism interests in tiger reserves. The Sunday Guardian. New Delhi. September 2, 2012. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/conservationists-have-tourism-interests-in-tiger-reserves
  42. MoEF (2010) 31207.11 SQ.KM. Notified by 16 tiger range states as core or critical tiger habitat. MoEF, via Press Information Bureau. August 18, 2010. http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=64917
  43. MoEF (2011) Clarification by Minister of State for Environment and Forests on Tiger Reserves, Critical Wildlife Habitats and Forest Right Act, 2006. Government of India. February 14, 2011. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=69806
  44. Mukherjee A (2009) Local perceptions of conservation intervention in Kanha National Park. Econ Polit Wkly 46:60–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279086
  45. National Green Tribunal (2014). Tribunal at its own motion versus Ministry of Environment Others. Original Application No. 16/2013(CZ) (Suo Moto). WWF India. April 4, 2014. http://www.wwfindia.org/?11343/Tribunal-at-its-own-motion-Vs-Ministry-of-Environment-Others
  46. Navin P (2013) Dolomite mining a threat to tiger corridor in Kanha. The Times of India, Bhopal. April 10, 2013. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Dolomite-mining-a-threat-to-tiger-corridor-in-Kanha/articleshow/19469163.cms
  47. NCFRA (2010) Manthan: report of the National Committee on Forest Rights Act (NCFRA). New Delhi: The Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/FRA%20COMMITTEE%20REPORT_FINAL%20Dec%202010.pdf
  48. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  50. Panchtilak R (2014) 419 families evicted from Kanha National Park in 75, No compensation yet. January 9, 2014. http://www.cgnetswara.org/index.php?id=29126
  51. Paris N (2015) Tiger increase in India ’proof of the benefits of tourism. The Telegraph, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinjarkar V (2014) Tree felling permission given in tiger corridor. Times of India, Nagpur. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Tree-felling-permission-given-in-tiger-corridor/articleshow/38227054.cms
  53. Prabhu P (2005) The right to live with dignity. Seminar, vol 552. www.india-seminar.com/2005/552/552%20pradip%20prabhu.htm
  54. Press Trust of India (2008) MP to withdraw forest cases against STs. Times of India. July 29, 2008. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/MP-to-withdraw-forest-cases-against-STs/articleshow/3301859.cms
  55. Press Trust of India (2009) Jharkhand: 1 lakh cases against tribals withdrawn. NDTV, New Delhi. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jharkhand-1-lakh-cases-against-tribals-withdrawn-403051
  56. Rangarajan M, Shahabuddin G (2006) Displacement and relocation from protected areas: towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conserv Soc 4(3):359. http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2006/4/3/359/49270
  57. Rawat AS (1993) Indian forestry, a perspective. Indus Publishing Company, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  58. Read DJ (2015) Legitimacy, access, and the gridlock of tiger conservation: lessons from Melghat and the History of Central India. Reg Environ Change, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0780-7
  59. Saberwal VK, Rangarajan M (2003) Battles over nature: science and the politics of conservation. Permanent Black, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  60. Sethi N (2008) Tiger reserves to be kept out of Forest Rights Act ambit. The Times of India, New Delhi. January 1, 2008. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Tiger_reserves_to_be_kept_out_of_Forest_Rights_Act_ambit/rssarticleshow/2665787.cms
  61. Shankar M (2009) Tiger census: four healthy landscapes possible. India Together. March 31, 2009. http://indiatogether.org/tcensus-environment
  62. Shrivastava KS (2012a) Tigers reserved. Down to Earth. July 31, 2012. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/tiger-reserved-38660
  63. Shrivastava KS (2012b) MoEF pulled up for flip-flop on tiger tourism. Down to Earth. August 22, 2012Google Scholar
  64. Sinha BC, Qureshi Q, Uniyal VK, Sen S (2012) Economics of wildlife tourism—contribution to livelihoods of communities around Kanha tiger reserve, India. J Ecotourism 11(3):207–218. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2012.721785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sundar N (2011) The rule of law and citizenship in central India: post-colonial dilemmas. Citizensh Stud 15(3–4):419–432. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2011.564804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suroor H (2010) Media hype and the reality of “new” India. The Hindu. July 20, 2010. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/media-hype-and-the-reality-of-new-india/article523817.ece
  67. Thrupp LA (2000) Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of sustainable agriculture. Int Aff (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 265–281. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626366
  68. Trivedi D (2013) Like tiger, like tribal. The Hindu. February 10, 2013. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/like-tiger-like-tribal/article4389793.ece
  69. Tucker CM (2004) Community institutions and forest management in Mexico’s monarch butterfly reserve. Soc Nat Resour 17:569–587. doi: 10.1080/08941920490466143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Upadhyay S, Chohan S, Vaidya A (2009) India’s Forests and the Judiciary—The Godavarman Story. ELDF and WWF India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  71. Vaidya A (2011) A history of forest regulations, InfoChange News & Features. http://infochangeindia.org/environment/backgrounder/a-history-of-forest-regulations.html
  72. Venkatesan J (2012) Ban on tourism in tiger reserves’ core areas goes. The Hindu. October 16, 2012. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ban-on-tourism-in-tiger-reserves-core-areas-goes/article4002445.ece
  73. Véron R, Fehr G (2011) State power and protected areas: dynamics and contradictions of forest conservation in Madhya Pradesh, India. Polit Geogr 30(5):282–293. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilshusen PR, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “Protection Paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Soc Nat Resour 15(1):17–40. doi: 10.1080/089419202317174002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright JH, Hill NAO, Roe D, Marcus Rowcliffe J, Kümpel NF, Day M, Booker F, Milner-Gulland EJ (2015) Reframing the concept of alternative livelihoods. Conserv Biol. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12607 Google Scholar
  76. WWF-India (2011) Helping the tigers of Kopijhola. May 6, 2011. http://www.wwfindia.org/?5880/Helping-the-tigers-of-Kopijhola

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations