Abstract
The practice of conservation through displacement has become commonplace in developing countries. However, resettlement programs remain at very low standards as government policies only focus on economic-based compensation which often excludes socially and economically marginalised groups. In this paper, based on a case study of the displaced indigenous people, the Rana Tharus, from the Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve in Nepal, we argue that compensation as a panacea is a myth as it does not effectively replace the loss of livelihoods. This is particularly the case when the indigenous community's customary rights to land are not legally protected. Our ethnographic data support the contention that the history of social exclusion is rooted in the land reform and settlement policies, which deprived the Rana Tharus of proper land rights. The present land compensation scheme resulted in a 'double whammy' on indigenous forest dwellers. The legal land title holders on average received less than 60% of their land. Moreover, due to the poor quality of soil in the resettlement areas the average crop yield was less than half the quantity produced before displacement. While economic indicators show widespread impoverishment with less food security, low agricultural productivity, and landlessness, social indicators suggest depletion of social capital in the resettled communities where there are less job opportunities and less social networks. Our study indicates that along with compensation, the concept of 'livelihood restoration' should also be fully implemented in any resettlement program to prevent further impoverishment.
Highlights
IntroductionThe debate often involves what should take precedence in determining the use of land with more than 12% of the surface land under protected areas
Land use is a contentious issue in the context of conservation
We aim to examine the effectiveness of resettlement policy in restoring livelihoods by using an interdisciplinary approach—combining anthropology and economics
Summary
The debate often involves what should take precedence in determining the use of land with more than 12% of the surface land under protected areas. This is because they contend it is a global or national public good, and is essential for humanity’s survival in the long term (Lam 2012). As a result, protecting the natural environment has made displacement and compensation-based resettlement a taken-for-granted strategy (Brandon and Wells 1992; Chatty and Colchester 2002; West, Igoe and Brockington 2006; Agrawal and Redford 2009)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.