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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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)

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call