Tiger conservation: A study on impact investing and hassles faced in measuring social impact

Abstract

On 29th of July 2019, marking the World Tiger Day, our Prime Minister gleefully announced that India had achieved its target of doubling the Tiger population four years ahead of time. According to the 2018 tiger census the tiger population in India now stands at 2967, almost 30% up from 2226 in 2014. Many conservationists celebrated this success of protected areas and even suggested to increase the area under protection and consolidate the gain of this proven approach – the protected area model as the conservationists call it, fortress conservation as its critics call it. Our Prime Minister also casually went on to say that India’s conversation model could now be replicated by other countries. Is that so? Have we really hit upon the eureka moment when it comes to conservation efforts, or is it another hostile takeover, another case of conservation at a huge social and ecological cost, another set of stories of human impoverishment slyly pushed under the carpet? How sustainable are these practises? What is happening with the Indian forests for the last two centuries is a mere replica of what happens with the company in a hostile takeover. New owners take over the business without the consent of the old owner/management, in most cases there is employee backlash and on ground mismanagement – till the new owners find ways to manage the company again. Back in the 1860’s, the Britishers forcibly acquired forest land for timber, today the government displaces the local people in the name of conservation. Conservation effort in India today gives rise to what Mark Dowie calls – the Conservation Refugees. These refugees are expected to bear the social and economic cost of conservation effort. However, as we have moved from the old regime of autocracy under the Britishers to the regime of democracy – displacing the local community is becoming more and more difficult as pointed out by M.K. Ranjitsinh, author – A life with wildlife “In recent times evictions have become more and more difficult to accomplish as tribal communities have become part of the state apparatus and gained an electoral and democratic voice. While relocation by forcible means has now become that much harder, the forest department achieves its goals by putting a livelihood squeeze on the people who live within these reserves” The tribal who refuse to move out are supressed. The state now imposes restriction on erstwhile livelihood generating activities like hunting, agriculture, even the use of fire to manage the forest. This loss of access to livelihood though people are located inside the protected area is no better than actual displacement thus making people coin a word – institution displacement for the phenomenon. They can also be likened to the Chinese “nail houses” marooned in the middle of emerging cities having refused to hand over the property to the state.