SC NBWL Shifts Tiger Reserve Policy Toward Coexistence Amid Forest Rights Debate
Contents4
Hindustan Times - India · 30 Mar 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Environment Mains · GS3 Environment and biodiversity High relevance
The SC NBWL has recommended promoting coexistence between forest dwellers and wildlife in tiger reserves while facilitating voluntary relocations, marking a policy shift from NTCA's relocation-first approach and highlighting tensions between conservation goals and Forest Rights Act protections.
Key points
SC NBWL recommended coexistence-based management in tiger reserve core areas while supporting voluntary relocation of willing communities, diverging from NTCA's 2024 directive for expedited relocations.
NTCA data shows 591 villages (64,801 families) remain in core areas, while SC NBWL reports 730 villages (76,032 families) still inside Critical Tiger Habitats, with Central India and Eastern Ghats being major hotspots.
Financial assistance for voluntary relocation increased from ₹10 lakh to ₹15 lakh per family in March 2023 under central schemes, reflecting revised rehabilitation costs.
Ecological studies by WII with NTCA support will demarcate core/buffer zones more accurately, addressing past hasty notifications that expanded Critical Tiger Habitats without proper assessment.
[GS2-Governance] The policy shift connects to implementation challenges of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognizes gram sabhas' authority over community forest resources in protected areas.
[GS3-Environment] Case studies from Biligiri Ranganathaswamy and Sathyamangalam reserves demonstrate successful tiger population growth despite human presence, challenging relocation orthodoxy.
Legal context: The issue is sub judice in Wildlife First v. MoEFCC, with parallel debates on whether forest rights degrade habitats, as raised by Tribal Affairs Ministry.
Constitutional angle: The coexistence approach balances Article 21 rights of forest dwellers with Article 48A's directive for wildlife protection, requiring nuanced policy calibration.
Way Forward: Implement coexistence frameworks through gram sabhas per FRA, withdraw NTCA's mandatory relocation orders, and establish scientific monitoring of human-wildlife interaction zones to assess conservation outcomes.
Key terms
- Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH)
- Areas notified under Section 38V of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as amended in 2006, where tiger conservation takes precedence. CTHs require scientific assessment and approval by NTCA, often becoming flashpoints between conservation and forest rights.
- Forest Rights Act, 2006
- Legislation recognizing rights of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers over land and resources. Section 3(1)(i) specifically grants 'right to protect' community forest resources, forming legal basis for coexistence claims in protected areas.
- National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)
- Statutory body under MoEFCC established via 2006 Wildlife Act amendments. Mandated to approve Tiger Conservation Plans, monitor reserves, and coordinate relocation packages. Its 2024 relocation directive conflicted with FRA provisions.
- Voluntary Relocation Package
- Financial assistance scheme for families moving from tiger reserves, currently ₹15 lakh per family. Governed by NTCA guidelines but criticized for inadequate livelihood support and consent processes.
Practice question
Critically analyze the policy shift towards coexistence-based management in tiger reserves, highlighting its implications for wildlife conservation and forest dwellers' rights. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS3 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) Forest Rights Act, 2006 National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) Voluntary Relocation Package Article 48A Gram Sabha Human-Wildlife Conflict Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the SC NBWL's recent recommendation favoring coexistence over mandatory relocation in tiger reserves, situating it within the Forest Rights Act vs. wildlife protection debate.
Conservation Implications
Challenges NTCA's relocation-first approach with evidence from Biligiri/Sathyamangalam case studies showing tiger population growth despite human presence
Need for scientific demarcation of core/buffer zones (WII studies) to prevent habitat degradation
Potential risks of increased human-wildlife conflict without proper monitoring frameworks
Forest Rights Dimension
Aligns with FRA 2006 provisions recognizing gram sabhas' authority over community forest resources
Addresses criticism of relocation packages (inadequate livelihood support, consent issues)
Balances Article 21 (rights of forest dwellers) with Article 48A (wildlife protection)
Governance Challenges
Coordination required between NTCA, Tribal Affairs Ministry, and state forest departments
Legal complexities (Wildlife First v. MoEFCC case, Section 38V of Wildlife Protection Act)
Implementation hurdles in voluntary relocation (enhanced ₹15 lakh package utilization)
Conclusion
Suggest a balanced way forward: scientifically validated coexistence models through gram sabhas, withdrawal of mandatory relocation orders, and robust monitoring of human-wildlife interaction zones.
Fact check
All facts verified