Context:
• The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs has unveiled a community-centric conservation policy, moving away from the long-criticised “fortress conservation” model that excludes local communities from tiger habitats.
• The new framework aims to ensure that tribal and forest-dwelling communities are treated as rights-holders, not obstacles to conservation.
Key Highlights
- Shift to Community-Centered Conservation
- The new policy framework puts forest communities at the core of conservation decision-making.
- It asserts that forest-dwelling families are stakeholders, and relocation cannot occur until the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 process is fully completed.
- Relocation Only as an “Exceptional Measure”
- This reverses the NTCA’s 2024 directive, which recommended large-scale removal of villages from tiger reserves.
- Relocation is permitted only under rare circumstances and must be voluntary and rights-based.
- Emphasis on Coexistence Over Exclusion
- Advocates research-led and pilot-based models for sustainable human–tiger coexistence.
- Encourages participatory conservation, acknowledging communities as long-term stewards of forests.
Significance
- Reworking the Conservation Paradigm
- The policy aims to create a socially legitimate, durable conservation model.
- Moves away from the “fortress” model that physically isolates wildlife by evicting communities.
- Legal Safeguards for Communities
- Invokes provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to prohibit unlawful evictions.
- Introduces a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism to protect the rights of affected communities.
- Diversity of Community Needs
- Recognises that forest-dependent communities vary:
• Some seek modern amenities,
• Others prioritise traditional lifestyles. - Calls for customized, region-specific solutions rather than blanket relocation.
- Conservation Sector Concerns
- Conservation biologists warn that core zones need to remain human-free to protect tigers.
- Institutions may resist policy changes due to fears of:
• slower habitat consolidation
• increased administrative burdens
• complex implementation challenges.
- Implementation Gaps & State Autonomy
- FRA implementation varies significantly across states, creating enforcement inconsistencies.
- Even though compensation and inviolate area rules exist, ground-level practices often diverge from policy norms.
- Need for Localised Mechanisms
- Effective coexistence demands fine-grained, context-sensitive approaches, which are difficult for central ministries to execute uniformly.
Prelims Focus
- FRA provisions: individual rights, community forest rights (CFR), rights over minor forest produce.
- Differences between inviolate areas and buffer zones.
- NTCA’s role under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
- Concept of “coexistence conservation.”
Mains Relevance
GS 3 – Environment & Ecology
- Human–wildlife conflict management
- Community participation in conservation
- Models of protected area governance
- Ethical conservation approaches
GS 2 – Governance
- Rights-based policymaking
- Centre–State implementation dynamics
- Grievance redress systems
GS 1 – Indian Society
- Tribal rights
- Cultural diversity within forest communities
- Impact of displacement on social structures
Possible Mains Question
- Critically examine how India’s new tribal policy challenges the fortress conservation paradigm. Discuss the implications of this shift for tiger protection and community rights.