explorations Vol. 4 (1), April 2020 E-journal of the Indian Sociological Society Research in Progress: Conflict and Compensation in Protected Areas: A Case Study of Kaziranga National Park, Assam Author(s): Shapna Medhi Source: Explorations, ISS e-journal, Vol. 4 (1), April 2020, pp. 119-134 Published by: Indian Sociological Society 119 explorations Vol. 4 (1), April 2020 E-journal of the Indian Sociological Society Conflict and Compensation in Protected Areas: A Case Study of Kaziranga National Park, Assam --- Shapna Medhi Abstract Protected Areas often share boundaries with local communities leading to frequent human-wildlife interactions, which result in conflicts. Though the Kaziranga National Park, located in the Indian state of Assam, is considered one of the most successful cases of conservation, it witnesses recurrent human- wildlife conflicts thereby leading to conflicts between park management and local communities. In such cases, compensation figures act as one of the most important conflict mitigation tools. Based on empirical research conducted in the vicinity of Kaziranga, this paper deals with the dynamics of human-wildlife and park management-local community conflict. It examines the process of compensation policy, along with the issues and challenges experienced by the local communities. It also raises the question as to whether the compensations offered to the victims have been able to fulfil its primary purpose of reducing conflict and building trust between the park management and the local communities. Key words: Compensation, Human-wildlife conflict, Kaziranga National Park, Park management, Protected areas Introduction Conflict is pervasive and the theories essentially suggest that social interactions coupled with incompatible goals lead to conflict. In a dynamic world with rapid changes in bio-physical environment and socio-cultural systems, Protected Areas (PAs) are now at the core of many conflicts. These PAs are areas of conservation with varying degrees of laws and regulations, mostly managed by state agencies, more often than not surrounded by human population. The resultant human- wildlife interaction causes losses for both human and wildlife. Amidst this, the PA authority responsible for the management of PA is mandated to uphold 120 explorations Vol. 4 (1), April 2020 E-journal of the Indian Sociological Society conservation objectives. In such areas of conservation, financial aid for losses incurred by local communities due to wildlife is often regarded as a means of conflict mitigation. Against this backdrop, the focus of this study is on the compensation offered to people for the loss of livestock, crop depredation and damage of houses, etc. This paper focuses on the compensation policy, process and the experiences of the local communities regarding compensation in Kaziranga National Park (KNP) in Assam. The paper begins with a brief discussion of the major conflicts in PAs and progresses on to the debate of financial compensation as a conflict mitigation tool in the context of KNP. Study Area and Methodology This qualitative study has been conducted in two fringe villages bordering the southern boundary of the park, i.e., the Mori Difoloo river. These villages namely, Lukurakhaniya and Gosanibor are located 5 and 6 kms. respectively east from the central range, Kohora. The Lukurakhaniya village, dominated by Assamese community, also has a few tea tribal households. Gosanibor village is inhabited by the tea tribe, Assamese and Nepali communities. A majority of the respondents of these villages engage in agriculture. In-depth interview with the help of a semi-structured questionnaire was conducted with the respondents belonging to different communities in the villages through repeated visits to the field between October, 2017 to May, 2018. Interviews were also conducted with forest officials. For conducting the study, snowball sampling was used as it was found that respondents were reluctant to participate in the study without proper reference. Conflict in Protected Areas PAs, or more precisely, national parks can be termed as institutional projects (Selby & Petajisto, 2008, p. 14). They are often located in the proximity of the rural population in developing countries that have become more marginalised with the establishment of PAs (Wells, 1994; Stone & Nyaupane, 2016). The traditional approach employed by conservationists was based on the idea that nature and man are separate. This idea was foregrounded on the premises that man’s interaction with nature can only lead to its destruction, which overlooked human dependence on nature for sustenance and survival. Within this framework, 121 explorations Vol. 4 (1), April 2020 E-journal of the Indian Sociological Society the conservationists fought for nature and wildlife protection, while it became a fight for survival for the forest-dependent local communities, thereby leading to conflict. In India, the scientific management of forests began during the colonial rule, primarily for consolidating British control over the forests. Guha and Gadgil (1989) describe the plight of the hunter-gatherers, the shifting cultivators, and also the settled cultivators that were affected by the imperial forest policies throughout the Indian subcontinent. The people were oblivious of the notifications regarding reservation of forest areas, thus continuing their daily affairs in the forests that led to them being labelled as encroachers in their homestead (Nongbri, 1999). Protests and rebellions against colonial forest policies became the new norm. Even after Independence, the plight of the forest dependent communities received little attention, with acts and policies continuing to overlook the poor and tribal people’s dependence on forests. In this context, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers Act or Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 is considered as a weapon against the historical injustices done to forest dependent communities. With its initial inception as a game forest in 1905 to being declared a national park in 1974 and a tiger reserve in 2007, KNP has been a ground of conflicti. One of the prominent forms of conflicts that can be witnessed in PAs is human- wildlife conflicts (Ogra & Badola, 2008; Johnson et al., 2018). When the conflict between the local communities and wildlife escalates and the PA management fails to address those issues, the conflict does not remain confined only between human and wildlife but transforms to conflict ‘between humans about wildlife’ (Madden, 2004, p. 249). Human-Wildlife Conflict in Protected Areas Due to damage caused by wild animals to agricultural crops, human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is likely to have occurred ever since man resorted to agriculture. According to the World Parks Congress Recommendation, the human-wildlife conflicts occur when wildlife and humans adversely impact each other (Madden, 2004, p. 248). In areas adjacent to the PAs, conflicts also surface because local communities directly or indirectly often feel pressurised to assist with conservation, despite financial burden and personal risk (Nyhus et al., 2006). It has been noticed that whenever wildlife has caused damage or the possibility of causing damage to human life and livelihood has existed, they have been killed 122 explorations Vol. 4 (1), April 2020 E-journal of the Indian Sociological Society leading to extermination of certain species in some cases (Woodroffe et al., 2005). HWC, which seems as an offset of direct loss caused to communities, is made more complex due to people’s attitude towards nature that is determined by varied factors like religious affiliation, ethnicity and cultural belief (Dickman, 2010). In KNP, the animals from the park often spill over the park boundaries destroying crops and property, threaten human life at times even causing human death. The resentment and animosity towards wildlife is apparently because the cost of conservation is largely borne by the communities residing on the fringes of the PAs (Brandon et al., 1998; Terborgh et al., 2002). However, with the highest degree of protection offered under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 to KNP, the people have little control on such situations. The enactment of strict rules and regulations prohibit the people from safeguarding their crops and livestock by traditional methods and practices like culling (Watve et al., 2016). Apart from the direct costs, they are also subjected to ‘hidden costs’ like diminished states of psychological and social well-being (Ogra & Badola, 2008). While narrating experiences of residing near KNP, a respondent confided that they lived in ‘constant fear’ of being rendered homeless by herds of elephants, a situation they had to encounter more than five years back. It has been observed that though there is an acceptance amidst them that they are disadvantaged due to the location, the dismay due to lack of a proper redressal of their grievances emerged simultaneously. A retired forest officer expressed shock at the violenceii displayed by the people while chasing away stray wildlife. He added that such scare tactics distressed the animals and they ‘wreaked havoc’ causing further damage. This expression of violence might be an indication of the underlying resentment in the minds of the people or an opportunity for retaliation against the wildlife. Inspite of the recurrent losses to fringe communities from wildlife in KNP, the communities show better tolerance than in other national parks like Sariska iii. However, a proper understanding