Nagarahole:
Adivasi Peoples' Rights and Ecodevelopment

by Janara Budakattu Hakku Stapana Samithi*

Workshop sponsored by:

Forest Peoples Programme
Bank Information Center
C S Mott Foundation
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
Environmental Defense Fund
Rainforest Foundation UK and USA
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

Introduction

On 6 September 1996, the International Development Association (IDA) approved a credit of US$ 28 million to the government of India for an Ecodevelopment Project. On the same day the International Bank for the Reconstruction and Development approved (IBRD) with the bank acting as an implementing agency) a Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Trust Fund Grant to India of US$ 20 million. The credit became effective on 27 Dec 1996. The Ecodevelopment Project (Cr.No.2926-IN; GEF TFG No.TF028479-IN) proposes to support the management of seven protected areas of significant bio-diversity in India. The project aims to conserve biodiversity, ‘by addressing both the impact of local people on the protected areas and the impact of the protected areas on local people.’ (1) One of the seven sites selected for this project is the Rajiv Gandhi National Park (also known as Nagarahole) in the southern state of Karnataka. The Nagarahole forests are the traditional home of around 32,000 indigenous adivasi people (2) who at present reside both inside and around the periphery of the Park.

The principle aim of the report is to discuss the impact of the Ecodevelopment project on the lives, livelihoods and future of the adivasi peoples who at present dwell within the limits of the National Park. In the process we first describe the Nagarahole forests and its people, the legal framework under which the national park was constituted and the Ecodevelopment project as it is envisaged by the Bank and as it is unfolding at Nagarahole.

We then focus on the serious violation of the projects own stated aims and the World Bank Operational Directive OD 4.20. The Report of the World Bank’s Inspection Panel, which visited the area in 1998 and confirmed serious flaws in the design and basic premises of the project will also be discussed along with the ongoing attempts to threaten and evict people forcibly from the Park.

Finally we will attempt to demonstrate that the best interests of bio diversity conservation and wildlife can be achieved by involving the adivasi people and recognising their traditional rights to their land and resources. In support, we put forward a `Peoples Plan for Nagarahole` that has been prepared by the adivasi people in the Park. In Conclusion, we formulate a set of issues arising out of the Nagarahole experience for wider discussion.

A       Peoples and Forests of Nagarahole

Nagarahole is primarily a deciduous forest with the prevalence of tropical semi-evergreen, tropical moist mixed deciduous, tropical dry deciduous forests. The main tree species are Adina spp., Pterocarpus spp., Terminalia, Dalbergia, Schleichera and several species of bamboo. It is watered by five large perennial rivers and 40 artificial water tanks. An unusual feature of the National Park is swamps in low-lying areas (locally known as haadlus). The fauna of Nagarahole is said to compare with some of the finest natural habitats of the world and some of the endangered fauna include the tiger, leopard, elephant, wild dog, sloth bear, bison, spotted deer, barking deer, mouse deer, four-horned antelope. Nagarahole lies in a belt that boasts of the highest concentration of the Asiatic elephant anywhere in the world. Other important fauna include the Indian Giant Squirrel, jungle and leopard cat, small Indian and Malabar civet and avifauna including a wide range of predatory birds such as the crested honey buzzard, crested serpent eagle, grey headed fishing eagle and falcons as well as the lesser whistling teal, adjutant stork, spoonbill. (Table 1)

A total of about 32,000 adivasis reside in 138 haadis (settlements) in and around the Park spread over three talukas (sub division within a district) of Kodagu and Mysore districts. Residing at present within the limits of the Park are 58 haadis with a population of 1550 families (around 7,200 people). The adivasi peoples of Nagarahole are a part of a major concentration of adivasis in south India around the Nilagiri plateau, which is at the trijuncture of the three states of Kerala, Tamilnadu and Karnataka (see map). They, however, constitute only 4 percent of the Scheduled Tribe population in the country.

They are the Jenu Kurubas, primarily hunter-gatherers people who are expert honey gatherers and also earn a living by casual labour. The Betta Kurubas (hill dwellers) are food gathers and specialise the bamboo craft.. The Yeravas specialise in fishing and subsistence agriculture, and have four sub-divisions, of which the Pani Yeravas and the Panjeri Yeravas are the inhabitants of the Park All the adivasis living in and around the National Park, dependent upon the forest for their lives and livelihood.

Their traditional method of cultivation is unique in the sense that no trees are cleared, no ploughing or sowing is done and no inputs such as pesticides or inorganic fertilizers are used. In some cases, especially for the paddy crop, the adivasis utilize naturally occurring low lying swamps which is a unique and critical habitat (haadlus), providing ungulates with water and forage during summers. No concept of crop raiding by wild herbivores exists because the adivasis believe in sharing the crops with the other denizens of their homeland.

Thus when the British first came to the region in 1847, they found that nearly 75 percent of the people were adivasis – mainly hunter-gatherers, pastoral people and shifting cultivators. The Gazetteer of India, Karnataka State, Kodagu District, 1993 and Mysore District, 1988, states that the tribal communities of the region have been dwelling here since time immemorial and had enjoyed an unrestricted life. Land was owned in common and the people hunted, fished, trapped small birds, collected minor forest produce and practiced slash and burn cultivation. The tribal people sustain their lives and livelihood through various minor forest produce such as tubers, fruits, flowers, roots, honey, herbs, vegetables, scrapings of the barks of trees etc. for food, medicine and household implements. (see Table 2)

Indigenous peoples of Nagarahole consider the areas to be their traditional territory - Jamma - and believe that they belong to this land which has sustained them for centuries and it is on this land that their Gods exist, where their ancestors are buried. The traditions of the adivasis of Nagarahole revolve around the 12 `kottis’ (sacred spots) .The adivasis believe in Devaru (force of creation) and Hettaya (spirits of their ancestors). For them the forest is not a clump of trees or a measure of economic wealth but a sustenance base and more essentially a “cosmos”. Their concept of time is not linear but cyclical. Their sacred sites are important, not in a traditional religious sense but because the sacred sites embody the wisdom of their ancestors from whom they gain advice.

When the forests were used as Royal Hunting Reserve the Kings employed the adivasis to trap and domesticate elephants and later the British and the Indian Government’s Forest Department used them as labour on logging and other forest operations. The situation, however, changed suddenly with the forests came to be constituted as a National park and adivasi people began to harassed, and systematically evicted or facing the threat of eviction.

But before we go further, it is important to understand the status of the National Park under Indian law as it has a bearing on the rights of the people to their habitat and the resources therein.

B       Protected Areas and Indian Law

Protected Areas (PA) like National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. Under the Act of 1972 the Government of India has created 85 National Parks, 450 Sanctuaries, which involved the forcible removal of nearly 650,000 people from their traditional habitats. Around 3 million people continue to reside within these Protected Areas and are likely to be displaced. In addition the government proposes to set up an additional 200 sanctuaries and 65 national parks, which may lead to the displacement of another million people. The bulk of the people affected by the creation of this network of PAs are indigenous adivasi peoples.

Under the provisions of the Act of 1972, once an area is notified as a National park /Sanctuary (under Sections 18,26-A, 35, 38(1) or 66(3) the Collector (the principle Administrative and Revenue Authority in the District) is to inquire into and determine the nature and extent of rights held by the people in or over the notified land. The Collector is to publish in the regional languages in very town and village in and around the area specifying the boundaries of the notified land and informing the residents to make written claims of their existing rights and other maters including compensation due in case the rights are extinguished. Such claims are to be given to the Collector within a period of two months, who is then to inquire into the rights and settle them.

In the case of Rajiv Gandhi National Park, the Chief Wild Life Warden issued a notification dated 4 February 1975 (G.O. No. AFD.14.EWL.78 dated 4.2.1975. Government of Karnataka, Bangalore) declaring the intention to constitute an area of 571.55 Sq. kms covering Mysore and Kodagu Districts as the Nagarahole National Park, under Section 35(1) and Sections 19 to 26 of the WLP Act. On 23 September 1982, a preliminary notification was issued under Section 33(b)(c) and (d) and Section 35 of the WLP Act declaring 183.85 Sq.mts as the Core Area of the Park. The final notification for the Park was issued on 16 March 1983 (Notification No. FFD 195 FWL 82 dated 16.3.1983 Government of Karnataka, Bangalore). Later notices were issued for the inclusion of an additional 71.62 Sq. Kms for which final notification is yet to be issued. The government is supposed to have inquired into and settled the rights of all people, but it appears that no such inquiry was conducted and no notices were issued as prescribed in the Act of 1972. The Deputy Commissioners of Mysore and Kodagu who were supposed to conduct the inquiry did not do so. The adivasis in and around the Park were completely in the dark about the intention to constitute the areas into a National Park and about their rights in the Park.

In a petition filed before the Karnataka High Court by the Samithi and DEED (a local NGO) it is alleged that the procedures as laid down in the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 have not been complied with. The petition before the Karnataka High Court argues that the eviction of adivasi peoples from the Park has been illegal all along. Thus, all the families displaced should be properly resettled and compensated before any steps are taken to displace the people who are currently within the Park. The High Court has appointed a high powered committee to investigate the matter and submit a report to the Court. (3)

The procedures for the settlement of rights followed by the Act of 1972 are enshrined in The Indian Forest Act of 1927. These procedures adopted from the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 enable the State to acquire land in the name of `public interest’ and poses the State as the sole protector of the environment and nature. The people thus are depicted as enemies of the environment, who have no rights and if they have any rights, they have to be settled. Thus all displacement of people from the PA is projected as a necessary in the largest `public interest’ of conservation and protection of the environment

Thus, in the understanding of the Forest Department and government bureaucracy, settlement of rights was seen and implemented as a procedure for the eviction of people from the PAs. Second is that only recorded rights are considered for settlement, which ignores the historical processes that underline the take over of forests by the British and the multiple uses and dependency of the local people on these resources, not to forget the communities had customary rights to their habitat.(4) This was further confounded by Public Interest Litigation filed by the World Wildlife Fund – India seeking the court to order the immediate and full implementation of the Act of 1972 and for the settlement of rights of people within PAs. The Court orders on the issue led to a situation where officials of the forest department went on an eviction spree in several PAs across the country. (5)

But forced displacement is not legitimised anywhere in the above mentioned provisions, nor do they speak of absolute discontinuance of rights, Sanctuaries and reserved forests, in fact provide for the continuation of rights at the discretion of the Chief Wildlife Warden and the Forest Settlement Officer. In addition, the government’s objectives as stated elsewhere and international commitments speak of different set of guidelines. For instance, The National Forest Policy of 1988 for the first time spoke about the need to conserve and preserve biodiversity and the intrinsic relationship of the local communities to their forests. The Policy also spoke for the protection of the customary rights and recognised the importance of forests as a means of livlihood for indigenous peoples.

Further 1990 the Indian Government issued guidelines on Joint Forest Management – for the joint management of the forests by the forest department and local communities. Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity that the Indian government signed after the Rio summit 1992, commits the government to the protection of indigenous peoples rights to forests and their involvement in the management of these resources. (Artice 8 (J) of the Convention)

In view of the above, there is a PIL before the Supreme Court filed by the Samithi and CORD along with several peoples organisations from PAs across the country which pleads that there is a need to examine the role of people in the context of the above and to ensure that the adivasi people and other forest dwellers are restored their rights to their traditional habitats.

The Court has directed the State Governments to respond to the petition and the matter is at present pending final hearing and disposal. (6)

Another significant development has been the enactment of the Panchyati Raj (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996. This Act which provides for self-government and powers to the village councils to decide on matters of management of local resources, water bodies, minor forest produce is yet another a significant development that has a bearing on the rights of adivasi peoples. Under this Act no project can be undertaken in an Scheduled Area without the explicit permission and consent of the village assembly. But the Act of 1996 applies only to Scheduled Areas and despite the concentration of adivasi peoples in the region the Government of Karnataka has not declared the area as a scheduled Area and hence the Act of 1996 does not apply to the people in Nagarahole.

At this point of time, the concepts and premises that governed the management of PAs and the rights of indigenous peoples and other long time residents of these areas is under debate and before the Courts. While there has been a shift in focus internationally for people involvement in PA management and the commitments made under the Convention on Biodiversity will have some bearing on the ultimate outcome of the issues at stake at Nagarahole and the ongoing Ecodevelopment project.

C       The Ecodevelopment Project

The Ecodevelopment Project is envisaged to meet the expenses for project preparation, improved protected area management, village Ecodevelopment, education and awareness, impact monitoring and research, overall project management and preparation of future biodiversity projects.

According to the Bank’s Staff Appraisal Report the Ecodevelopment project has five basic objectives:

A.     Improve Protected Area management through strengthened capacity to conserve biodiversity and increase opportunities for local participation in PA management activities and decisions.

B.     Village Ecodevelopment to reduce negative impacts of local people on the PAs. Reduce negative impact of Pas on local people and increase collaboration of local people in conservation efforts.

C.     Developments of more effective and extensive support for PA management and Ecodevelopment through education, research and interaction between PA management and people.

D.     Overall project management

E.      Preparation of future biodiversity projects. [*]

We will consider here two of the objectives which have a direct bearing on the indigenous people living in and in the immediate periphery of the Park- improve PA management with the involvement of local people and Ecodevelopment to reduce negative impacts. We will not discuss the details of the ecodevelopment plans for the people outside the Park, but concentrate on the people within the Park.

In the case of the preparing plans for improved PA management, it is stated that people living in and around the PA are dependent on the resources and are most effected by the establishment of a PA. Thus the project seeks to provide opportunity for these groups, including NGOs to take part

in PA plans provide them direct benefits which in the long run will strengthen the relationship of sustainability and mutual dependency for the conservation of the PA.

The Samithi has pointed out to the Bank on several occasions pointed out that there was no specific indigenous people development plan designed with the informed participation of the affected tribal groups. This is a requirement as per the Operational Directives (OD) 4.20 of the World Bank.(7) The OD 4.20 states clearly that “informed consent” of the indigenous/local inhabitants must be obtained and the “Indigenous People’s Development Plans” must be formulated wherever there are indigenous people in the Project area. To state it in the OD’s language: “identifying local preferences through direct consultation, incorporation of people’s knowledge into project approach are core activities for any project that affect indigenous peoples and their rights to natural and economic resources”. “The key step in Project design is the preparation of a culturally appropriate development plan based on full consideration of the options preferred by the indigenous people affected by the project”. The people feel that they have never been consulted prior and/or during the design of the project and they consider it a violation of their basic right to determine their future.

Information, Consultation and Consent

One of the corner stones of the Ecodevelopment project is that the effected people will be consulted at every stage of the evolution of the project. Operational Directive 4.20 clearly states that, “ identifying local preferences through direct consultation, incorporation of indigenous knowledge into project approach, and appropriate early use of experiences specialists are core activities for any project that affects indigenous peoples and their right to natural and economic resources”.

These become all the more serious, as the Bank was aware, right from the initial stages of planning was aware that “Nagarahole…is the most challenging of the seven sites in the Project because of a history of mistrust between tribal people and government.” Even the indicative plan prepared by the Indian Institute of Public Administration pointed out that, “… there exists a confrontationist and generally antagonistic relationship between the forest department and the Adivasis and is likely to continue to be strained”.

Second, It was “… understood that it would be a controversial Project largely because of divergent views coming from those with interests in bio-diversity and those with interests in expanding people’s access to resources.” There is, for example, a widespread view shared by the Forest Department of Karnataka that the tribal population living inside the park constitutes the main source of degradation of the biodiversity in the Protected Area” To correct this, the Bank promised to, “… carry out a small-scale anthropological and ecological study on tribal groups and their relationship with natural resources in the area”

In spite of this, the Bank made no concrete efforts to consult and involve the people in the project at the design level. The record of the letters by the Samithi that put forward their concerns of to the Management speaks for themselves:

·   On October 27, 1994, several ‘NGOs wrote to the Bank’s India Mission protesting the project proposal made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests & Wildlife. In response, in a letter dated December 24, 1994 [ Bank] … stated that “… the issues could be addressed through open and constructive dialogues with the Karnataka Forest Department and other NGOs over the succeeding months when the project was to be finalized.” As of June 1996, “… there haven’t been any known initiatives on the part of World Bank … In the meanwhile, “several protests from the concerned people and NGOs were filed with the World Bank, with no responses at all.”

·   On April 1, 1996, at a WB/GEF-NGO consultation in Washington, Ms. Anita Cheriah presented “… an analytical report on the contradictions and contrasted of the proposed plan, especially with regard to the Bank’s own directives and principles. The Bank did not respond.”

·   On June 1, 1996, the Bank’s New Delhi office organized a consultation on the proposed Project where the participating NGOs were to be identified by Center for Science and Environment, New Delhi, the designated focal point by GEF for South Asia. “A list furnished by Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi (CSE) was almost totally foregone (only 2 invited with hours short-notice to ensure even their own participation) and…even the CSE was not extended a formal invitation to the meeting. (Reference: CSE’’ protest letter to the Social Development Unit, World Bank, dated 13 June, 1996.)

·   On June 17, 1996, the Budakattu Krishikara Sangha, (a regional organisation of the indigenous peoples in the region) and seven concerned NGOs with involved with the tribal people of the area, registered their protests about the project. In response, Bank staff suggested a consultation between the Forest Department and the complainants. “The concerned tribal people were not ready for this consultation on the ground that they could not accept a plan for which they never had been consulted and the Forest Department would not give off their prerogatives.” In her letter dated June 18, 1996 to CORD, “[Staff] admits that no PPF or project-supported participatory micro-planning has yet taken place but hoped for it shortly. What followed was that she had a flying visit to Nagarahole and held discussions only with the forest officials and not with the people.”

·   The Nagarahole Budakattu Janara Hakku Stapana Samithi filed their official protest with the World Bank on 26 September, 1996”… to which there was no response at all.

·   The Forest Department and the World Bank’s India office “… seem to have conspired … to enlist NGOs who factually didn’t have any involvement with the tribals … The visit of WB Appraisal Team during the first week of July, 1998, was intimated only to (certain) ‘enlisted’ NGOs, and there were deliberate efforts to keep away the others.”

·   The World Bank “… remained deaf to protests aired by concerned NGOs and Indigenous peoples movements nationwide.” An example is “… the joint protest placed during GEF Assembly in the first week of April, 1998.”

·   The Samithi sent a request to the Inspection Panel [†] of the World Bank (IPN Request No. RQ 98/1) on April 13. 1998 that will suffer harm because the IDA Management has violated policies and procedures on the Bank

The visit and report of the Inspection Panel was a turning point, as the Panel confirmed most of the fears of the Samithi.

Inspection and Response of the Management

The Inspection Panel headed by Mr. Jim Macneill visited the Park on September, 1988 and held discussions with the representatives of the Samithi, local NGOs and concerned officials of the Karnataka Forest Department.

In a longer letter to Mr. MacNeill on September 2, the Samithi and concerned NGOs said that the: “… Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba and other adivasi peoples (scheduled tribes) are the indigenous people of the territory that presently constitutes the Rajiv Gandhi National Park and we have never been consulted prior and/or during the design of the Eco-development project. We think that is a violation of our basic right to determine our future and to oppose a project that we think will have a negative impact on our lives, livelihood and on the survival of our people.”

In response the Bank submitted before the Panel that they had indeed consulted several NGOs and involved the local people in the planning. The Inspection Panel, which heard both sides of the argument observed that, “The consultation required by OD 4.20 is clearly meant to involve the “… informed participation of the potential affected peoples themselves.” It is not meant to be restricted mainly to institute-type NGOs, as valuable as their views may be, as a result of their surveys of potentially affected peoples.*

The Bank admits that Tribal development concerns, it states, “are integrated under the rubric of social impact, participation, and equity, rather than as a subsidiary tribal development plan or component.” Moreover, it states that since “… over half of the project beneficiaries are tribal people and all areas have significant numbers of tribal people, the provisions of the OD would apply to the entire Project.

Management claims that its past experience with conservation projects in areas with human pressures pointed towards “… a process design project which, after a period of indicative planning to establish the framework and define appropriate processes, proceeded to get things done on the ground.” This basically involves “… a two-phase three-step process. Indicative planning to establish the main areas of conflict, appropriate participatory mechanisms, eligible types of investment, and effective institutional arrangements was undertaken during project preparation. The more detailed consultative micro-planning and Protected Area management planning, during which individual families and groups express their needs and resolve conflicts in a context with funding available, will be carried out during project implementation.” (Emphases added.)

The decision to defer the specific actions required by OD 4.20 from the appraisal stage to the implementation stage has a number of consequences. Most important, perhaps, it has denied most of the long-resident adivasi (tribal peoples) of the park any significant input on the basic assumptions and concepts underlying the indicative plan that currently constitutes the Ecodevelopment Project. These assumptions and concepts concern for example, “the main areas of conflict” including the traditional rights of the adivasi to use the resources of the park. They concern “appropriate participatory mechanisms” for the future processes of micro planning and their role therein. They concern “eligible types of investment.” They concern “effective institutional arrangements” and the tribals’ role in the future management of the park. IDA’s past.

The panel observed that the only document that was provided to the Samithi and local NGOs was the Staff Appraisal Report and the adivasi peoples request that it be translated into their local language, Kannada, was never complied with. Information disclosure in a language understandable to the affected people is an obvious prerequisite to “meaningful and informed” consultation, and they view this as a serious violation of the 1993 Bank’s Directive on Disclosure of Information.

In addition, the Bank acknowledges that the end of 1994 it had identified the need for additional studies, in particular those related to the tribal population. Unfortunately, however, in spite of the recognized “history of mistrust between the tribal people and the government” at this “most challenging of the seven sites,” the Project did not carry out the “identification of local preferences through direct consultation” with the affected people themselves at the appraisal stage. Instead, management chose to keep the project design phase at a level of generality that did not allow the real problems to appear, in particular the inherent conflicts at Nagarahole.

On October 21, 1998, the Report of the Inspection Panel was placed before the Executive Directors (IPN Request RQ98/1), in which it submitted that, “The Panel finds that certain key premises underlying the design of the project at the Nagarahole site are flawed, as a result of which there is a significant potential for serious harm. It therefore recommends that the Executive Directors authorize an investigation into the case.” But the Directors chose otherwise and requested the Management to rectify the flaws in the course of implementation of the project. The Bank decided to entrust the job of rectifying the flaws to the management in the course of implementing the project

What are real issues at stake at Nagarahole. As the Inspection Panel reported that, “If an Indigenous People’s Development Plan has been prepared for the Nagarahole site during the years 1995 and 1996, it would have further exposed the tension between biodiversity protection objectives and the condition and aspirations of the indigenous people at Rajiv Gandhi national park. It would have enabled significant input on the basic assumptions and concepts underlying the Ecodevelopment Project. And it might well have exposed the weakness of some of the premises under which the Project was conceived, at least for this particular park.”

Relocation: Is this the only Real Option?

The fundamental premise underlying the Ecodevelopment Project is that the populations resident in the park, including all the adivasi, have a choice to stay or leave. They can choose to stay in their communities within the park, or t