105
4
index). During the same period, the proportion of income from wage labour
increased from 37 US dollars in 1995 to 114 US dollars in 2009. The significant
reduction in NTFP income and the increase in income from wage labour are consistent with the process of proletarianization that is evident in many parts of rural
India (Harriss et al. 2010).
The loss of livelihoods due to the curtailment of access to natural resources has
not been compensated by other sources of income. While tourism has increased tremendously during the last decade and provides income for lodges and the state, no
portion of these revenues are shared with local people. Neither does tourism offer
sufficient livelihood options for people who have been displaced by conservation.
The employment of Adivasi in tourism is negligible. In 2010, out of the 31 employees
in a state-run tourism resort in the BRT, nine were Adivasi, eight of whom were
temporary employees performing low-paid tasks. The ‘make live’ possibilities that
might have existed in the form of employment in tourism or in the redistribution of
tourism revenues have been ignored.
Another of the ‘make live’ options that Adivasi households rely on is now under
threat from conservation related restrictions. Households that are located close to
the coffee estates have for decades worked in the estates to augment their income.
While 17% of Adivasi households in BRT are employed throughout the year in coffee estate work, 13% are employed for a few months when labour requirement is
high. Although estate labour is a major source of income for many households, there
have been recent attempts by the state forest administration to terminate the leases
of the coffee estates. The possible termination of the leases of the coffee estates will
have a significant impact on Adivasi and reinforce the ‘let die’ motivations of state
conservation policy.
The alienation of Adivasis from forest-based production and their increased
dependence on labour wages and cultivation of cash crops represent a significant
transformation in livelihoods as a result of conservation policy. These outcomes
have occurred even without the physical eviction of Adivasis from the forest.
The mapping of a web of relations demonstrates how conservation measures
have had some primary effects (increase in wildlife density, expansion of Lantana,
reduction in NTFP availability) and some secondary effects (increased crop-loss,
increased dependence on wages, farmers switching to coffee). These effects further
led to a general decrease in total income and in food security for the local population. But as we have seen, restrictions on resource use have also had adverse environmental effects. The ban on fires has resulted in the proliferation of the invasive
species Lantana camara and reduced forage availability for wildlife due to the reduction of grasses and other vegetation (. Photo 4.3).
This case study does not discuss physical displacements caused by conservation,
but rather the impact of conservation measures on people who still remain in tiger
reserves. Hence, the BRT is a case of in situ displacement (Feldman et al. 2003),
which implies socioeconomic, but not spatial displacement (Ince 2014). The case of
BRT differs from recently reported cases of conservation as accumulation by dispossession by the fact that the Adivasis are not (as yet) evicted to create ‘wilderness’ (as
is also the case with Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania discussed earlier).
4.4 · Challenges to the Win-Win Discourse
4
index). During the same period, the proportion of income from wage labour
increased from 37 US dollars in 1995 to 114 US dollars in 2009. The significant
reduction in NTFP income and the increase in income from wage labour are consistent with the process of proletarianization that is evident in many parts of rural
India (Harriss et al. 2010).
The loss of livelihoods due to the curtailment of access to natural resources has
not been compensated by other sources of income. While tourism has increased tremendously during the last decade and provides income for lodges and the state, no
portion of these revenues are shared with local people. Neither does tourism offer
sufficient livelihood options for people who have been displaced by conservation.
The employment of Adivasi in tourism is negligible. In 2010, out of the 31 employees
in a state-run tourism resort in the BRT, nine were Adivasi, eight of whom were
temporary employees performing low-paid tasks. The ‘make live’ possibilities that
might have existed in the form of employment in tourism or in the redistribution of
tourism revenues have been ignored.
Another of the ‘make live’ options that Adivasi households rely on is now under
threat from conservation related restrictions. Households that are located close to
the coffee estates have for decades worked in the estates to augment their income.
While 17% of Adivasi households in BRT are employed throughout the year in coffee estate work, 13% are employed for a few months when labour requirement is
high. Although estate labour is a major source of income for many households, there
have been recent attempts by the state forest administration to terminate the leases
of the coffee estates. The possible termination of the leases of the coffee estates will
have a significant impact on Adivasi and reinforce the ‘let die’ motivations of state
conservation policy.
The alienation of Adivasis from forest-based production and their increased
dependence on labour wages and cultivation of cash crops represent a significant
transformation in livelihoods as a result of conservation policy. These outcomes
have occurred even without the physical eviction of Adivasis from the forest.
The mapping of a web of relations demonstrates how conservation measures
have had some primary effects (increase in wildlife density, expansion of Lantana,
reduction in NTFP availability) and some secondary effects (increased crop-loss,
increased dependence on wages, farmers switching to coffee). These effects further
led to a general decrease in total income and in food security for the local population. But as we have seen, restrictions on resource use have also had adverse environmental effects. The ban on fires has resulted in the proliferation of the invasive
species Lantana camara and reduced forage availability for wildlife due to the reduction of grasses and other vegetation (. Photo 4.3).
This case study does not discuss physical displacements caused by conservation,
but rather the impact of conservation measures on people who still remain in tiger
reserves. Hence, the BRT is a case of in situ displacement (Feldman et al. 2003),
which implies socioeconomic, but not spatial displacement (Ince 2014). The case of
BRT differs from recently reported cases of conservation as accumulation by dispossession by the fact that the Adivasis are not (as yet) evicted to create ‘wilderness’ (as
is also the case with Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania discussed earlier).
4.4 · Challenges to the Win-Win Discourse