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 they can choose to voluntarily resettle in communities adjacent to but outside the park. These are two options that have equal weight and value in terms of the support they are to receive from project resources. Further budgetary allocations for investments to support either option would be driven entirely by the choices made. That is, for example, if 50 families chose to leave and 1,500 families chose to stay, the aggregate allocation of project resources would reflect those choices.

The government has stated in the SAR, that they “… shall … not carry out any involuntary resettlement for any people resident within the PAs.” They also state that, “Any proposals for voluntary relocation of people under…the Project shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with criteria agreed with the Association and the bank, and after prior approval of the Association and the Bank.”

They agreements direct that, “Each of the Project States shall prepare in accordance with procedure and guidelines agreed with the Association and the Bank an indicative list of Ecodevelopment investments for people opting to remain within the PAs, and shall include such people in the village Ecodevelopment activities under … the Project.”. Concerning the balance between the two options, the SAR states that “… relocation under the project will be voluntary in the sense that it would be driven by the wishes of the local people and planning will take place in the context of options that would not involve relocation.”

There are two aspects to this. First, voluntary relocation as the Bank understands it is does not require strict scheduling because it is driven by wishes of the local people rather than by an external event. Voluntary relocation under the project would not be time bound, there is no need to prepare a resettlement plan prior to appraisal. People may move out at different times – at their own pace. The success of the project does not depend on time bound or complete evacuation of people from the PA. Indeed a major objective to foster the cooperation of the people who would not be moving

Despite the commitments made to the Bank on the Ecodevelopment project, as far as the Forest Department is concerned, relocation is the pre-condition for any meaningful role for the adivasis in the Ecodevelopment project. For instance, the Forest Department told the Inspection Panel that there are no plans for the people who do not wish to relocate. In fact the Forest Department has prepared a massive plan for the resettlement of people outside the Park. The underlying reason is that the Forest Department is confident that it will convince the people to relocate by making it difficult for the people to reside within the park.

Much before the Ecodevelopment project, eviction of people from the Park has been going on since the 1970s.

-          In 1972, 18 adivasi hamlets were ousted to make way for the Kabini dam, which was built to provide drinking water for the people in cities like Mysore and Bangalore. In August 1998, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) undertook an investigation on the problem of rehabilitation and resettlement of the tribal populations affected by the Kabini Reservoir as also those affected by the adjoining Bandipur National Park. In its recommendations the Commission has noted that 108 tribal families displaced during the construction of the reservoir are yet to be rehabilitated.

-          From 1973 and between the period 1973-92 and a total of 3,680 families have been forced to leave their traditional homes from within the Park without any procedures to settle their rights as prescribed under law.

There are several methods by which the Forest Department will make it difficult for people who do not wish to relocate to stay in the Park. Some of these have been in operation for some time now. These include:

·         No cultivation of any kind:

·         Livestock and dogs are not allowed to be kept by the adivasis. This theory has been propagated on the basis that domestic animals will contribute to the spread of contagious diseases.

·         No hunting is allowed : Even Ritual hunting. Jenu Kurba men ritually men hunt a species of wild boar (Kurra Panni) belonging to the species of wild pig family and offered to their wives during pregnancy; without this offering the offspring cannot assert its adivasi identity.

·         No renovation of houses is allowed – not even simple repairs and putting tiles on the roof of their houses.

·         No digging of borewells .

·         A total ban on collection of minor forest produce like tubers, mushrooms and other wild vegetables and fruit which are the staple food of the Adivasi community and linked with their rituals and practices. For the Jenu Kurubas, honey collection is the very basis of their cultural base and this impacts directly on that.

·         No entry to their sacred sites and burial grounds : A ban on their traditional music and dance forms : Instruments like the Pongi (a flute like instrument) and Anchali (wire instrument) are not allowed to be played. Kollatum, a dance form is not similarly allowed. This, even while the Government allows noisy construction to carry on nearby.

The other method is outright terror and forcible eviction, which has been stepped up since the visit of the Inspection Panel in 1998.

Soon after the departure of the Inception Panel. The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests claimed in a press statement that the WB had approved the Rehabilitation Plane prepared by the Karnataka government. (8).

The above schemer the relocation of 1550 families from the Nagarahole National Park was first implemented with 51 families who were shifted to Bettaakkadu. It was presumed that depending upon the success of this scheme the government will relocate the rest of the tribal families residing within the National Park, but reality gives different picture.

The families shifted (27 of these 51 families are employees of the Karnataka Forest Department) and the conditions of those rehabilitated is terrible to say the least The promise was that they will be provided with 5 acres of land for cultivation, houses and financial support to undertake agriculture. To date they have not been give ownership of their lands, the houses are not suitable for the adivasi peoples life style and basic amenities are not available at the rehabilitation site. For instance nearly 8 people had died so far in the new site and a ladies new born child was picked up and killed by a stray dog.

The relocated tribal people protested against this demolition and this has now been stalled. The Forest Department was dependant on these people for their knowledge of the forest and the flora and fauna within it and they assisted the Department in dousing forest fires. Now they are relocated outside the National Park. It is believed that the rest of the tribal families would be evicted in a similar manner using this scheme as a model and any opposition is threatened with arrests, violence and some activists have been implicated in false cases (9).

Given the above experience, where every attempt by the people of Nagarahole to defend their rights has come under attack. The people have not alternative but to resort to peaceful non-cooperation and protest. They however believe that they have the right and knowledge to manage the their traditional territories in the best interests of conservation of biodiversity and wild life. Which is provided in the `Alternate People Plan”, which has been given to the Bank as well as to the Inspection Panel. The Bank informed the Panel that plan was received by the Management and admits that it was not considered during the preliminary stages, but intend to consider later within the context of development Management Plan.

An Alternative Peoples’ Plan for Nagarahole

The Samithti has prepared after a series of discussions at the Haadi level a plan for the conservation and management of the Nagarahole forests. This plan was sent to the Bank as well as placed before the Inspection Panel. The sailant points of the plan are:

(a)    The Nagarahole forests must be under the direct supervision of the adivasi, in tune with their indigenous identity and with due recognition and powers to their conservation idioms with the guarantee that there would be no forced re location of any of these adivasi families from their habitat.

(b)    All conservation strategies must be in consultation with the adivasi and with their prior approval, in keeping with the time tested indigenous knowledge and expertise in their possession.

(c)    There should be no commercial exploitation of Nagarahole either for timber or for wildlife, including consumptive tourism. Tourism, if a must, should be in the adivasi idiom with visitors staying in adivasi haadis and living their lifestyle in harmony with the forests. The Nagarahole must cease to be haunts for pleasurable past times.

(d)    The Nagarahole must be managed by a Steering Committee comprising Jamma Sabha (Territorial Assembly) Yajmanas (traditional leaders elected by the community), representatives of the State, environment groups, adivasi organizations and experts in different spheres and concerned individuals.

(e)    Various works such as building of roads and concrete structures inside the Nagarahole must stop with immediate effect. The adivasi reject any development initiative which destroys the canvas of the wild. The adivasi families which have been forcefully re-located to the fringe forest areas must be vested with the right to enter the forests for performing their traditional duties and observing their festivals, apart from enjoying their minor forest produce. These families include 600 families in 12 haadis in Virajpet sector and 800 families in 34 haadis in Hunsur sector.

(f)     Vigorous efforts must be made to curtail ‘fence eating the crop’ with necessary vigil on the agencies of the State and adivasi and the state agencies should work hand in hand in keeping out the smugglers and the poachers. Forest contractors should be banned.

(g)    All disbursement of payments for conservation efforts including fighting forest fires all must be through the management committee and should not be vested solely with forest department personnel.

(h)    The state should initiate special efforts at imparting specific training to the adivasi in order to blend traditional wisdom with acceptable modern conservation strategies with the ultimate aim of the adivasi himself assuming positions such as Conservators and above. As an interim strategy, the state should recognize adivasi Yajamans in the necessary manner by according them honorary titles with equal powers as the agencies of the State.

(i)      Movement of all vehicles except to meet conservation requirements and emergencies must be banned inside the forests. These vehicles must be solar powered to reduce noise and environmental pollution. All approach toads passing through the forests must be diverted outside the forests on a war footing.

(j)      All concrete structures within 10 km radius of the forests should be demolished and strict regulations must be enforced for any structure which comes up in future.

(k)    All research activities must have the unanimous approval of the managing committee and the managing committee should be the final authority for clearing any research project. The committee should also have the right to withdraw its permission for any research project if and when it is found to be anti conservation.

(l)      Adivasi Rapid Action Force must be deployed in strategic locations with necessary mobility and communication networks. The State should stand with the adivasi in fighting the pressures on the forests from the village societies.

(m)  The adivasi reject all externally funded conservation efforts as long as these efforts are funded in the form of loans. The adivasi stand is that all such conservation efforts must first secure the approval of the adivasi and the high power management committee and any funds should be in the form of grants which are not to be repaid or have any strings attached in the form of patenting and such others.

Management Strategy

Currently, Nagarahole is being managed by the State agencies without any scope for active participation of the adivasi. The dangers of such efforts have been enlisted earlier with the teak plantation and the eucalyptus misadventure standing out as glaring examples. It is also clear that without a community effort and participation of all, the forests given the intense pressures on it will not last beyond the next two decades of the 21^st century. The adivasi gravely disturbed by such a serious situation, propose the following management module.

The British model of wildlife management, which still in vogue even 50 years of independence has the Nagarahole, segmented into Seven ranges under two conservation circles, one territorial and another wildlife. These ranges and their range officers have over the decades merely made it a pastime to attack the adivasi for all the denudation and destruction of the forests. This is not established by facts.

On the contrary the facts establish that there is large scale encroachment of the forests by the powerful planters of Kodagu, that most of these forest officers are rich beyond their normal means, that a strong timber lobby still pry on these forests with the connivance of the agents of the State and that wildlife meat is available for the planters at their fancies. On the adivasi part, the only fact that exists is that a handful of adivasi have been coerced into wielding the guns provided by the planters under threat given the feudal sensibilities of these planters and powerful farmers who continue to address the adivasi in derogatory terms as ‘hey, Kuruba’ (meaning infidels in their parlance and not recognition of an ethnic identity).

The indigenous model for management of the forests, under such circumstances, to be implemented by the adivasi is a three tier system comprising (a) Haadi Sabha) (b) Nagarahole Jamma Sabha and (c) Steering Committee. These management systems include (a) Forest Conservation Committee and (b) Arbitration Committee at each Haadi and Jamma level.

(a)    The Haadi Sabha comprises of all adivasi elders and women of each adivasi Haadi, who have attained 18 years of age. All programmes will be planned and implemented in each Haadi by the Haadi Sabha which will also have the responsibility of supervising these programmes. All conservation efforts and utilization and distribution of minor forest produce in the forests which are in the ambit of each Haadi will be as per the guidelines established by the Haadi Sabha. The forest conservation committee at the Haadi will be a committee established by the Haadi Sabha and it will have the responsibility of preventing all disruptive activities on the forests apart from implementing and supervising conservation exercises. The Haadi Sabha would also bring the Arbitration Committee into existence and this committee would be the final authority in settling any disputes and the punitive measures declared by this committee on erring members of the Haadi will be final. The traditional Yajaman of the Haadi will be the chairman of the Haadi Sabha and the arbitration committee. The chairman of the conservation committee will be appointed by the Haadi Sabha, which will meet once a week. The conservation committee shall meet once in fifteen days and arbitration committee whenever there is a dispute.

(b)    The forests will have Nine Jamma Sabhas which will meet once every month. These Sabhas will have three representatives from each Haadi Sabha comprising the Yajaman, the chairman of the conservation committee and a lady representative. The Yajaman of the Jamma Sabha will be an unanimous choice by the representatives of the Sabha and the Steering Committee will arbitrate on the nominees for Jamma Sabha Yajaman from the list submitted by the Jamma Sabha in the event of there being no unanimity among the Jamma Sabha members. The Jamma Sabha will be the final appellate authority for resolving any dispute which is carried over from the Haadi Sabha and decisions shall be arrived at with full participation of the Jamma Sabha members with the Yajaman announcing the decision only with the mandate of the majority. The Jamma Sabha shall also co-ordinate implementation of various programmes and shall lay the directions as per the requirements decided by the Haadi Sabha and if necessary, guidelines of the Steering Committee. The Jamma Sabha shall also be responsible for co-ordination with forest department personnel as and when necessary and laying the broad outlines of requirements and functioning of the various bodies in the Jamma based on the decisions taken by the Haadi Sabhas.

(c)    The overall management of the forests will be vested with a Steering Committee, comprising the Yajamans of the Nine Jammas; the forest department officers from DCF to CF and beyond; Environmental expert as identified by the adivasi and forest department; representatives of the NGOs involved in adivasi struggle in the region as identified by the adivasi; representatives of NGOs involved in environmental issues as identified by the adivasi, the forest department and the local administration; a representative from the concerned district administrations; Adivasi experts from the academic circuit as identified by Adivasi and NGOs working among Adivasi; Local MLA (member of the state legislature) whose constituency encompasses the forest; Local MPs (member of Indian Parliament); and three other representatives from other professions who are knowledgeable about the forest and adivasi.

The Committee has not exceed more than 35 members and shall meet once three months. An adivasi representative and a representative of the forest department will jointly chair the Committee. The meetings shall be convened compulsorily once in three months by the Government representative and as and when Ten members of the Committee jointly represent for a meeting. The Jamma Yajamans will nominate the adivasi Co-Chairperson. The Steering Committee Chairperson will be nominated from among all the Steering Committee members. The Secretary of the Committee who shall convene the meetings shall be a representative of the forest department.

The Committee has finalized the guidelines for management of the forests and the protection of adivasi culture based on the opinions expressed by the members of the Committee. The Committee shall also be responsible for mobilizing and channeling funds towards conservation and adivasi welfare.

The Committee shall also have the powers to decide on stringent punitive measures against all those involved in anti conservation activities and exploiting and infringing on the human rights and forest rights of the adivasi. The Committee shall also have the powers to nominate a Jamma Sabha Chairperson from among the list of nominees submitted by the Jamma Sabha in the event of the Sabha failing to make an unanimous choice. The Committee shall liaison with the Government and voice the micro planning inputs and ensures that the plans of the government are in keeping with the conservation needs and adivasi aspirations. The Committee shall ensure that there is no forcible eviction of adivasi from the forests and arbitrate on the actions of the forest personnel as and when cases are foisted on the adivasi without any basis. The Committee shall also be the final authority in appointment of lower level field personnel for conservation needs and adivasi welfare.

Adivasi Development Strategy

(a)    The adivasi economy shall be based on sustainable cultivation practices which has been followed over the centuries by these forest dwellers in the form of medicinal plants and forest produce such as gooseberries, honey, tubers, roots and shoots. The adivasi shall enjoy the rights over inter cropping without affecting the forest canvas around his Haadi and without using any modern machinery or chemical fertilizers. Horticultural produce shall also form a back bone of the adivasi economy and food habits. The adivasi shall have the rights over small prey which shall be listed out by the Steering Committee in consultation with the Jamma Sabhas based on seasonal observations.

(b)    The adivasi haadis shall be established by the adivasi in keeping with their traditions and merging with the topography of the forests without any destruction of the forest cover. The adivasi shall be given assistance for putting up their traditional dwelling structures using dead wood and dry leaves. If the State is keen on providing them with community electricity, the adivasi opt for solar electrification for lighting purposes and reject high tension wires passing over the forest endangering the wildlife. The adivasi shall also be given assistance for cleaning up traditional waterholes in the forests which have long gone unkempt, affecting both the wildlife and adivasis.

(c)    The adivasi children shall be educated in their mother tongue with Kannada being an optional language at the primary level. The curriculum shall be framed with the help of adivasi Yajamans, adivasi experts and educationists, based on the inherent conservation idiom of the adivasi. After due education, the adivasi shall be given preference in agencies involved in forest conservation and preservation of indigenous cultures. Each Jamma shall have a high school and collegiate education shall be given outside the forests with special facilities and institutions being established by the Steering Committee in the adjoining villages and towns. An Ashram Shale (residential school) based on decisions taken by the Haadi Sabha shall be established in a adivasi hutment for every five haadis in order to ensure nutrition inputs to children. The adivasi rejects construction of roads leading to the haadis and want only pathways to approach different haadis. Educated adivasi shall be given preference while appointing teaching for the primary and high school education by the Steering Committee.

(d)    The adivasi health system is invariably based on both the traditional systems and modern medical practices owing to irreversible process of history. While the adivasi need encouragement for sustaining its indigenous medicinal practices which are based on herbs and other forest produce, the adivasi also need access to modern medical practices for treating ailments which have reached the adivasi from the village societies. Hence, apart from bringing the existing health apparatus under the Steering Committee for better supervision, the adivasi shall have a PHC (Primary Health Centre) for each Jamma. Each Jamma Sabha Chairman shall also be given wireless communication systems managed by the forest department to call for mobile medical help in the case of emergencies.

We can only point out at this juncture that the above “Alternate Plan” was prepared after a wide range of consultation of peoples residing within the Park and it needs to be given the respect and attention it deserves.

Conclusions

The indigenous peoples of Nagarahole have explored all possible avenues to communicate to the Bank, the concerned governments and others concerned their views on the conservation of bio-diversity and wildlife in their traditional homelands that now constitute the Rajiv Gandhi National Park. They have argued that they see no conflict between the aims as proposed by the Ecodevelopment project and their own concerns for their traditional homelands, which are inextricably linked with their own survival, identity and culture. They see no reason why the original people of Nagarahole must be uprooted from their homes in the name of conservation and protection of wildlife.

They have demonstrated to the Inspection Panel of the World Bank the serious violation of the Bank’s commitments and rules laid down by the Bank itself. They have shown that the concerned governments do not respect and understand the perspective of the indigenous peoples and operate under false notions of conservation and biodiversity, which are out-moded, archaic and anti-people.

To this end, they have prepared and put forward a concrete plan for Nagarahole, which has he support and involvement of the people of Nagarahole, which is based on the recognition of their rights and their commitment to preserve, protect and develop the forests of Nagarahole for the benefit of the people of Nagarahole and in the larger interests of conservation and protection of the environment and wildlife.

In conclusion, we wish to place the following for discussion:

1.    As the experience at Nagarahole demonstrates, despite promises made the ecodevelopment will not adversly effect indiegnous peoples and that they will be active particpants and benifiiaries iof the projsct, it appears that the ultimate end result will be their eviction and displacement from their traditional homelands. These constitute a violation of the projects stated objectives and Operational Directives on indigenous peoples, which were confirmed by Inspection Panel.

       But the Bank by asking the Management and the respective government department to rectify the situation will not bear fruit as is evident from the present situation at Nagarahole. Thus the question here is what are the mechanisms that are in place and that need to be developed to ensure that this does not happen again? This appears to be the crucial question before many indigenous peoples across the world, at least in the case of World Bank supported projects.

2.    As the Inspection Panel Observed, On this aspect, the Panel observed that, “ combination of the 1972 Wildlife Act, the 1997 Supreme Court decision, official expectations concerning the present and future choices of trebles, and the elimination of their rights to use the land and forests in which they dwell, taken together, conspire to undermine the reality of the stay option”.

       It appears that this is happening in spite of the commitments that the government of India made in ILO Convention- 107, The Convention on Biodiversity in Nagarahole, not to speak of the provisions in ILO Convention 168 of 1989 and the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, which the Government of India has not signed so far.

       What are the mechanisms and methods that will ensure that government do not violate their commitments to international instruments for the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples Rights?

3.    In the face of this onslaught that have wiped out and decimated large numbers of indigenous peoples across the world, what are the options before indigenous peoples for the protection and respect for their rights to their habitats, natural resources, lands and culture?

______________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

(1) Staff Appraisal Report, India, Ecodevelopment Project, South Asia Department II, Agriculture and Water Division, The World Bank Report No. 14914 –IN, 3 August,1996, Washington DC, page (hereafter Referred to as SAP, 1996).

(2) We use the term adivasis, adivasi peoples, indigenous people, tribal people and Scheduled Tribes interchangeably in this report. The Government of India classifies the people as Scheduled Tribes. Operational Directive 4.20 of the Bank applies to indigenous/ tribal and semi tribal people as well as Scheduled Tribes.

(3) In a petition filed before the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore (WP © 14379 of 1998) by DEED, a local NGO concerned with the rights of the adivasi peoples in and around the Rajiv Gandhi National Park, has alleged that the procedures as laid down in the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA) of 1972 have not been complied with.

(4) When the British extended their absolute powers to the forest by enacting the Indian Forest Act of 1927, they changed forever the relationships of the forest dwelling communities to their lands and forests and did not acknowledge the customary rights and practices that the people had evolved over centuries to govern their use of these resources. However, the customary rights to use these resources were at times allowed to continue not as a right but as a privileges or concessions (Nistaar) at the pleasure of the government. These concessions could be withdrawn at any time.

(5) The Centre for Environment and Law - World Wide Fund for Nature-India, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India (WP (C) No 337 of 1995 praying that the government instruct all district administrative authorities to complete the formalities and inquire into and settle all existing rights of persons over land within the Protected Areas in the country.

(6) The petition (WP © 672 of 1998) in the Supreme Court of India argues on the basis of several judgements in other countries on indigenous peoples issues and international instruments ratified by India that the situation at present in the Pas in the country be rectified.

(7) The World Bank has formulated Operational Directives 4.20 for Indigenous Peoples which apply to all Bank funded projects which effects Indigenous Peoples. Annex 18 of the Staff Appraisal report of August 3, 1996 (page 279-80) provides a detailed account of provisions under OD 4.20, which are applicable to the project.

(8) Centrally Sponsored Beneficiary for Relocation of Tribals of National park for the Period 1997-2000.Karnataka Forest Department (Wildlife Division) Hunsur,1997. The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Government of Karnataka claimed in an interview published in the Times of India, Bangalore, on 5 September,1988 that the Inspection Panel had approved the above scheme and asked them to implement it at the earliest.

(9) There have been several attempts to harass activists and leaders. Leaders of the Samithi were detained along with members NGO on false charges. For instance on 16 Septemeber,99 the leader of the Smithi was picked up by police on false charges. Later members of CORD and DEED) local NGOs were also arrested and detained in jail. They were later released and it was proved later that they were false charges.