Community-Centred Tiger Conservation

Why in the News?

1. A new Union Tribal Affairs policy framework reaffirms that conserving tigers in India must respect forest-dependent people’s rights, insisting relocation only after completion of Forest Rights Act (FRA)
2. The policy rejects blanket village removals from tiger reserves and promotes research for sustainable human–tiger coexistence, signalling a shift from “fortress” conservation toward a social-contract approach.

Key Highlights

1. Policy intent and core principle
   1. The framework positions tiger protection as a social contract between the state, local communities and conservation agencies.
   2. It makes relocation an exceptional last resort and requires FRA processes to be fully completed before any move.
   3. The policy recognises people living in and near forests as stakeholders rather than trespassers.
2. Protection of statutory rights and legal safeguards
   1. The framework invokes legal protections such as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to guard against unlawful evictions.
   2. It prescribes a three-tier redress mechanism to handle grievances and ensure legal remedies are available to affected communities.
   3. These measures create procedural safeguards rarely available to forest-dependent people previously.
3. Response to previous directives and institutional shift
   1. The policy explicitly overturns the 2024 NTCA directive that recommended mass removals from tiger reserves, marking a shift in national administrative stance.
   2. It emphasises locally sensitive, participatory approaches over top-down mass relocation drives.
   3. The approach may recalibrate relationships among the Tribal Affairs Ministry, Environment Ministry, NTCA and state forest departments.
4. Emphasis on research and pilot projects for coexistence
   1. The policy encourages scientific pilots and research to test models of sustainable co-habitation between people and tigers.
   2. Pilots can identify context-specific strategies — for example, seasonal access rules, buffer management, or livelihood safeguards.
   3. Evidence from pilots would guide scalable, locally appropriate conservation practices.
5. Diversity of community needs and aspirations
   1. Forest-dependent communities are heterogeneous — some seek services (health, education), others prioritise preservation of traditional livelihoods and cultural practices.
   2. The policy recognises this diversity and calls for finely tuned mechanisms rather than uniform prescriptions.
   3. Effective implementation requires understanding local priorities and tailoring interventions accordingly.
6. Conservation scientists’ concerns and core zones
   1. Many conservationists argue that certain core, human-free tracts are essential for viable tiger populations and ecological integrity.
   2. The policy does not negate the need for scientifically designated inviolate areas; rather, it calls for balancing rights with ecological requirements.
   3. Ensuring adequate, uninterrupted core habitat remains a non-negotiable scientific priority for apex-predator conservation.
7. Institutional and implementation realities
   1. Forest management and conservation implementation are primarily controlled by state forest departments under the Environment Ministry, creating potential policy friction.
   2. States vary in how they interpret and apply FRA and relocation rules; some may continue forced relocations despite the new framework.
   3. The policy increases implementation complexity and workload for local agencies, requiring stronger inter-ministerial coordination.
8. Risks of dual or uneven policies on the ground
   1. Resistance from sections of the conservation establishment could slow adoption and lead to dual practices — fortress measures in some places and community-centred approaches in others.
   2. Uneven enforcement risks continued rights violations and damaged legitimacy of conservation efforts.
   3. Clarity, capacity building and monitoring are needed to ensure consistent application.

Key Terms

1. Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006
   1. The FRA recognises and grants title and use rights to forest-dwelling communities over land and resources they have traditionally used.
   2. It includes community forest resource rights, individual habitation rights and rights to minor forest produce.
   3. The Act establishes Gram Sabhas as the primary decision-making body for recognition of rights.
   4. It aims to correct historical injustices by formally recognising customary rights within legal frameworks.
   5. FRA implementation hinges on clear procedures, verification mechanisms and state cooperation.
2. Fortress Conservation
   1. Fortress conservation is an exclusionary model that prioritises protected area integrity by removing human presence from wildlife habitats.
   2. It often emphasises strict protection, fencing and minimal human access to core zones.
   3. Critics argue it can violate indigenous rights and ignore local knowledge systems.
   4. The model may be effective for some strict reserves but can cause social conflict and reduce long-term resilience.
   5. Contemporary conservation debates favour hybrid models that balance ecological protection with community rights.
3. Core and Buffer Zones (Protected Area Zoning)
   1. Core zones are areas within protected areas designated for minimal human interference to safeguard critical habitats and species.
   2. Buffer zones surround cores and allow regulated human activities that are compatible with conservation objectives.
   3. Zoning helps reconcile protection needs with livelihood use, reducing direct pressures on sensitive areas.
   4. Effective zoning requires scientific mapping, legal recognition and local acceptance.
   5. Transparent compensation and alternatives for restricted access are essential for social legitimacy.
4. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
   1. A legal instrument to prevent and penalise caste-based crimes and atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
   2. It contains provisions for special courts, protection measures and stringent punishments for offences.
   3. In conservation contexts, it can be used to deter and punish unlawful evictions or violence against tribal communities.
   4. Its invocation reflects an intersection of social justice law and environmental governance.
   5. Use of the Act must balance protection with due process and avoid misuse.
5. Participatory Conservation
   1. An approach that involves local communities in planning, decision-making and benefit sharing for conservation initiatives.
   2. It recognises local knowledge, customary rights and incentives as central to sustainable outcomes.
   3. Mechanisms include co-management committees, joint forest management and community-based monitoring.
   4. Participatory models can improve compliance, reduce conflict and harness local stewardship.
   5. Success depends on genuine power sharing, adequate resources and transparent accountability.

Implications

1. Rights-based conservation becomes mainstream: The policy strengthens the legal and moral basis for involving forest communities in conservation decisions.
2. Need for locally tailored conservation models: Scientific objectives must be reconciled with cultural and livelihood needs through context-sensitive interventions.
3. Greater procedural safeguards may slow relocations: While protecting rights, enhanced procedures will require time, resources and institutional capacity.
4. Potential shifts in conservation funding and planning: Budgets and project designs will need to incorporate community welfare, participatory research and conflict mitigation.
5. Improved social legitimacy could enhance long-term resilience: Community consent and benefit sharing can create more durable conservation outcomes than exclusionary models.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The new community-centred framework for tiger conservation realigns policy with constitutional rights and social justice while recognising ecological needs. Achieving meaningful coexistence between people and tigers will require patient, well-resourced, locally tailored action, stronger institutional coordination, and science-led zoning to protect core habitats. If implemented faithfully, this approach can create socially legitimate and ecologically resilient conservation.