Environmental Refugee - Ethical Perspectives-2.11.15.docx

28



For exploitation of forests for commercial purposes, the then British rulers established forest villages (bastees) in different parts of North Bengal. As a result, a number of forest villages came into existence in different pockets of Buxa division. People were first allowed to settle in the forest in connection with the scheme of taungya (contract) sowings (Karlsson 2000). With the establishment of forest villages the steady supply of labour force for silvicultural operations had developed. The forest villagers had been found to be quite skilled in raising new plantations and in doing other silvicultural operations, including ordinary road and bridge works and other minor repairs.



Locating 'Flood Disaster-Caused-Displacees' in the 'Environmental refugee' discourse: A case from National Park environment in India



Bidhan Kanti Das



ABSTRACT:

In the 'environmental refugee' discourse, researchers tried to conceptualise various types of forced displacees (or forced migrants), displaced by different natural and/or environmental disruptions. They are classified under different categories - 'disaster refugees', 'expropriation refugees' or 'deterioration refugees', 'climate refugees', and so on. This study tries to present a case of 'forest villagers' who were forcefully displaced from their original habitat and had to relocate to other parts of the forest area due to flood disaster. This study is based on micro level field data from a National Park located in the foot hills of Sub-Himalayan West Bengal, India. This case is particularly important, as several legal restrictions have been imposed on access to forest resources used by local inhabitants in national parks and sanctuaries under various conservation Acts. Drawing issues evolved from causes and consequences, this paper attempts to analyze whether this type flood-disaster-forced displacees can be conceptualised under existing conceptual categories of forced migrants. If not, what should we call them? This may help to understand the status of forest villagers in the context of the current forest management approach. It is argued that in the absence of definite status and recognition of flood-disaster displacees in the forest policy, a kind of alienation from the forest has developed among forest villagers, which might be detrimental towards sustainability of the precious biodiversity in India.


INTRODUCTION:
It is widely accepted that displacement occurs due to natural disasters, environmental degradation, development interventions, industrial accidents, violent conflicts and war. Manifestations of many hazards of natural or anthropological origins (like floods, droughts, storm surges, etc.) are on the rise over last few decades. These events are affecting more and more people severely and are generating huge damages globally (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters 2008). Factors like improved recording of disasters and their impacts, increased exposure of population to hazards through population growth and increased settlement in flood plains, or environmental degradation processes including climate change, are the major cause of these trends (Warner et al 2010).
Disasters caused by weather related and geophysical hazards (particularly floods and storms) are considered as one of the major causes of internal displacement worldwide. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring centre (IDMC), such events triggered the displacement of 20.7 million people, or 94 percent of the global total. Global estimate suggests that out of 22 million total displacees, 19 million are from Asia (87.1%) in 2013 (2014). It is widely recognised that though environmentally-caused migration occurs all over the globe, the major concentration of such migration is observed in the global South and particularly in the dryland regions of Africa (which are prone to desertification) and countries where sea level rise would be disastrous (small island nations and Bangladesh especially) (Renaud et al 2007; Cooper 1998: Myers 2005). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that there are at least 24 million migrants who have fled their homes due to environmental reasons (2002). Some researchers like Norman Meyers stated that there were already 25 million environmentally displaced persons in 1995 and he expected this number to double by 2010 ( Myers 1997; 2002). International organisations like Christian Aid predict that there will be 1 billion forcibly displaced persons by 2050, of which 50 million will have been displaced by natural disasters, 645 million by development projects such as dams and mines, and 250 million by climate change related phenomena like floods, droughts, famines and hurricanes (Christian Aid 2007). But other researchers decline to acknowledge those predictions, due to absence clear understanding about causal relationship between environmental deterioration and migration (Black 2001; Castles 2002).
In forced migration literature, there are a lot of contested terms, which have been used to categorise forced displaces or migrants caused by different events, like 'development-forced displacees' or 'development refugees' caused by development projects; 'conservation refugees' caused by conservation policies; 'disaster refugees' caused by natural disasters, etc. In addition, a lot of highly contested terms have emerged due to debates around linkages between environmental degradation and forced migration – 'environmental refugee', 'environmental migrant', 'forced environmental migrant', 'climate refugee', ' climate change refugee', 'environmentally displaced person', 'eco refugee', 'ecologically displaced person', etc. (Boana 2007). These terms have no accepted place in international refugee laws, for environmental conditions do not constitute a basis for international protection. They are descriptive terms, not a status that confers obligations on states (ibid).
The worldwide literatures have shown that the majority of forced migrants and/or development displacees fail to restore their livelihoods and they are left poorer, destitute and disempowered (Scudder 2005; de Wet 2006). It often makes pre-existing vulnerabilities worse, creates specific needs for assistance and protection and severely tests the resilience of people who are forced to leave their homes, land, communities, employments and livelihoods. Further, displaced people may face other risks, including the loss of access to common property resources, marginalisation, food insecurity, increased morbidity and social disarticulation (Cernea 2000). Even refugees have to face similar risks despite international protection and assistance (Kibreab 2000). This is especially true for those communities and individuals who are least prepared and are most at risk of neglect and discrimination, and for whom governments are primarily responsible for protection and assistance (IDMC 2012), and that demands proper rehabilitation and resettlement policy.
Against this backdrop, the present paper intends to identify causal relationships between environmental degradation-caused socio-economic changes and forced dislocation of population, as well as emergent threat of dislocation of other nearby populations. This will be illustrated by presenting a case of flood disaster displacees in the context of national park environment located in the foothills of Sub-Himalayan West Bengal. Based on identifying causal relationship, an attempt will be made to locate the present group of displacees in existing category of forced migrants. The ecosystems of Eastern Himalayan region have been fragmented due to migration, economic development and population increase along with climatic change (Beniston 2003). Fragmentation and fragility often cause soil erosion, mass wasting, landslides and other geo-climatic problems (Tewari 2000), ultimately affecting the downstream areas. These incidences along with intense monsoon rainfall lead to frequent flooding in the foothills and the areas downstream, and decrease in soil fertility level. This leads to reduction in crop yields and agricultural productivity, threatening livelihood of the local people (Chettri et al 2010). The situation directly affects the forest areas located in the foothills of Himalayan regions as local inhabitants are either under the direct threat of dislocation or are involuntarily displaced due to changing courses of rivers and streams that originate from Himalayan region and pass through the protected areas (Das 2009). As a result, a large tract of cultivable land has either eroded or got silted, making land unproductive for forest villagers. Here, a case will be presented to understand what happens when a village is washed out, leading to displacement of villagers from ancestral lands due to flood, particularly in a protected forest environment, located in the foothills of Himalayan region. This is typical in two respects. Firstly, several legal restrictions on day to day activity of the communities as well as management strategies have been imposed under various conservation Acts. Secondly, 'forest villagers' are residing within the forest reserve as per agreement with the authorities; hence they have no real ownership rights over the land. It further explores the types of socio-economic activities that have taken place in a new settled area. It tries to examine how forest authority treats those 'flood disaster displacees'. Where should these people be placed in the existing category of forced migrants? If it is not possible, should we consider these people as a separate category? Is the forest authority giving proper recognition to those displacees? Is there any proper rehabilitation and resettlement policy for those displacees? An attempt will be made in this direction. The case of flood disaster displacement in a particular forest environment is seldom highlighted in the existing literature on displacement studies, though they have serious policy implications.
As a part of the present study, an in-depth study has been undertaken in a forest village of Buxa Tiger Reserve, a national park, in northern part of Sub-Himalayan West Bengal. For this, Bangdoba forest village of this national park was selected, as the entire population of the village was forced to dislocate from the original habitat. Data of the present study has been collected through household census and genealogical methods. Some more information regarding relocation issues has been collected with the help of structured and open-ended questionnaires. Almost all the families of the forest villages have been taken into consideration for the study. Elderly people have acted as key informants for data collection.
The arguments in this paper are spread over several sections. The second section attempts to conceptualise the relationship between forced migrants/displacees and factors that were arguably identified as causes for migration, and to discuss the debates around the various concepts and categories existing in the literature. The third section deals with a case study concentrating on what villagers do when their whole ancestral homestead is washed out, and how they get resettled in a new site within the reserve, followed by an analysis of the socio-economic consequences in post displacement period. Section IV deals with the possible causes of flood disaster that leads to forced displacement of forest villagers from original habitat. The fifth section deals with an analysis done on categorisation of displacees of this sort under existing categories based on the experiences of people displaced by flood disaster. The concluding section argues for protection and assistance needed by forest villagers who are under the threat of dislocation or have actually been displaced. From human rights perspective, a policy framework that promotes resilience, livelihood and adaptation in the changing context of forest reserve is urgently required.

Conceptualising and debating on categorisation of environmentally displaced persons:
Though there are formal definitions of the terms 'refugee', 'internally displaced person', 'development displacee', 'disaster refugee', etc., there is no formal and authoritative definition of the term for the refugees and migrants of environmental change. Hence, the issue is much of public and scientific debate (Warner 2010). While the terms such as environmental refugee, climate refugee, environmentally forced migrant, environmentally displaced person, eco refugee, ecologically displaced persons, etc., are more discussed about to refer the phenomena, there is no authoritative definition of 'environmental refugee'. There is also debate on whether environmentally induced migrants are refugees in the true sense. There are three main dimensions to the debate on the notion of environmental migrants/refugees (Castles 2002). Firstly, there is definitional debate over the term 'environmental refugee' and people who can be classified under such a definition. Secondly, there is debate on causal relationship between environmental factors and migration or displacement, i.e., can environmental factors be identified as the root cause of migration or displacement? Thirdly, there is debate over who will provide protection to such a category of people. This is important for wider policy relevance to address environmental change and human mobility.
Environment related migration is a major crisis over the globe due to large scale displacement from their original habitat. However, there is strong debate on whether the people were really forced to migrate as a consequence of only one factor - environmental disruption or degradation. In 1985, UNEP researcher El-Hinnawi identified a category of people who are known as 'environmental refugee'. According to him, environmental refugees are 'those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of marked environmental disruption (natural or triggered by humans) that jeopardised their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of life' (El-Hinnawi 1985). In this definition, 'environmental disruption' means any physical, chemical, and/or biological change in the ecosystem (or resource base) that renders it temporarily or permanently unsuitable to support human life. This definition does not provide any generic criteria that distinguish environmental refugees from other types of migrants. Moreover, there is no specific difference between types of environmental refugees. So, many people can be classified under the umbrella of 'environmental refugee', questioning the usefulness of the concept. That means, he makes no distinction between refugees who leave due to disasters like floods or earthquakes and those who gradually leave their homes as soil fertility declines. Norman Myers (1993: 752) defined 'environmental refugees' as "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their erstwhile homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification and other environmental problems. In their desperation, they feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt may be. Not all of them have fled their countries; many are internally displaced. But all have abandoned their homelands on a semi-permanent - if not permanent - basis, having little hope of a foreseeable return". Diane Bates (2002), taking into account the definitions of others over the preceding years, offers an intentionally vague definition to take account of the transformation of the environment to one less suitable for occupation by humans, stating that environmental refugees are "people who migrate from their usual residence due to changes in their ambient non-human environment". That means, definitions with respect to "environmental refugees" generally have in common the fact that they do not distinguish whether the people migrating or fleeing have crossed an international border. It is also evident that even though the term "environmental refugee" is used, the authors encapsulate population movements that are not of the refugee type, at least not as per the definition of 1951 Refugee Convention. Under Article 1A of the 1951 convention (amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to status of refugees), refugees are those who meet three following criteria: i) they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; ii) they are outside their home country; and iii) they cannot - or will not, because of their fear - rely on the protection of their own government (UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2007). The international law on refugee protection provides a strong body of legally binding norms and principles, and is "essentially about promoting asylum in foreign countries" (Barutciski 2000). In addition, of the three aspects of the 1951 Refugee Convention mentioned above, the one that would be most difficult to define in the context of "environmental refugees" is the fear of persecution. Indeed, it is difficult to conclude who would be the persecutor, and in what sense is the group being "persecuted". It is opposed to facing a threat, noting that the term persecution implies an element of intent to harm or a failure to prevent harm from occurring (Hathaway, 1991). So, unless it is assumed that 'nature' or 'environment' can be termed the 'persecutor', the term refugee should not be used to describe those forced to migrate, either in part or entirely by environmental factors (Renaud et al 2007). This definition has been criticized for implying mono-causality between environmental factors and forced migration (Castles 2002). Some others argue that environment-related migrants should not be defined as 'refugees', because in international law, 'refugee' has a different status, where a strong body legally binding norms and principles is present. In defining refugee, one of the principal elements is that migrants must be outside their country of origin. This definition does not include people who leave their original habitat due to marked 'environmental disruption'. So, it is misnomer. In fact, there is no accepted definition of environmental refugee. Without any accepted definition, it is very difficult to say who can be categorized as environmental refugee. Various international groups like UNHCR, International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and Refugee Policy Group discarded the term and instead preferred to use the term 'environmentally displaced persons'. Environmentally displaced persons are 'persons who are displaced within their country of habitual residence, or who have crossed the international border, and for whom environmental degradation, deterioration or destruction is a major cause of their displacement, although it might not necessarily be the sole one' (IOM 2007). The UNHCR also uses the term 'environmentally displaced persons' instead of refugee and defines it as 'people who are displaced from or feel obliged to leave their usual place of residence, because their lives, livelihoods and welfare have been placed at serious risk as a result of adverse environmental, ecological or climatic processes and events' (Gorlick 2007). Here, to avoid confusion, the organization makes no reference to cross border migration or to displacement related to persecution, armed conflict or human rights violation (Gorlick 2007).
To rectify the lack of generic criteria for distinguishing one type of environmental refugee from another, Diane C Bates distinguishes 'environmental refugees' based on characteristics of environmental disruption: its origin (natural or technological), its duration (acute or gradual), and whether migration was a planned outcome of the disruption (intentional or not) (2002). Disruptions may be caused by disasters (natural and/or technological) or by expropriations of environment or deterioration of environment. While several researchers broadly agreed to include disaster refugees and expropriation refugees under the group of 'environmental refugee', most of the debate was focussed on deterioration refugees (Neuteleers 2011). It is basically related to climate change. It is argued that due to climate changes, living conditions deteriorate, forcing people to migrate. The basic problem with deterioration refugee is the difficulty to distinguish them from economic migrants. Stijn Neuteleers cited two main reasons. Firstly, there is a clear interaction between economic, social, political and environmental causes of migration. It is very difficult to disentangle environmental factors from other factors as major stressor. Secondly, because environmental deterioration is a gradual process, people can anticipate future environmental deterioration (2011). Similarly, economic migrants are people who choose to flee from poverty caused by social, political and environmental factors; but same applies to people for gradual environmental deterioration.
In fact, researchers are divided into two schools of thought regarding the concept of environmental refugee (Suhrke 1994). Authors like El-Hinnawi (1985) and Jacobsen (1988) who describe large numbers of environmental refugees and predict greater numbers in the future, are termed as 'maximalists'. They tend to conceive change in the physical environment and migration as simply causative and direct. On the contrary, authors like Bilsborrow (1992) and McGregor (1994) - termed as 'minimalists' - stress the complexity of the interaction between environmental and social systems, questioning assumption of direct link between environmental change and migration (Surhke 1994). For better understanding of the concept of environmental refugee, researchers tried to distinguish whether they were responding to rapid or slow onset of events (Bates 2002) and how to differentiate 'environmental refugees', who flee from environmental disasters, from 'migrants who move voluntarily in a context of environmental stress' ( Hugo 1996) . Others argued for continuum, classifying migrants based on extent of urgency to move and differentiating them based on the nature of the environmental disruption causing their movement (Hugo 1996; Bates 2002). On the other hand authors like Lonergan (1998) and Black (2001) outright rejected the concept of 'environmental refugee', 'environmental migrants', etc. They argued that it is poorly planned development and global North-South disparities that are largely responsible for generating vulnerability to hazards like flooding. Thus, environmental change is only a proximate cause of displacement while the root lies in global developmental inequalities (Black 2001).
Although some researchers questioned the inadequacy of environmental refugee terminology and conceptualisation, they did not discard the possibility that environmental factors may be extremely important for the triggering migration in certain circumstances (Castles 2002). Similarly, Oliver Smith (2006) argued that in rare cases, nature - or for that matter, the set of natural features and forces that characterize a region (as opposed to migration) - could be a single cause of migration. He further argued that environmental factors that emerge out of human misuse or alteration of nature, more frequently trigger migration. Natural features and forces in interaction of society become part of an assemblage of factors that trigger migration. So, the disagreement lies on the use of the term 'environmental refugee', not the linkage between environmental change and human migration. According to Morrissey, the debate on environmental refugee is really a debate about how a relationship is represented, and less about the nature of the relationship itself (2012).
David Turton, on the other hand, stressed on experiences faced by displacees due to involuntary relocation rather than on the causes of their flight or their status in international law (2003). He argued that refugee like situation of forced displacees should be considered as utmost important that thereby, needs protection and assistance. Arguing against expanding the refugee definition (Zetter 2007), Dun and Gemenne (2008) state that '…in determining whether or not someone is a " refugee", it is not necessary to determine whether or not the reason leading to persecution (….) is the main reason for displacement, but whether or not it happened'. This could be extended to the definition of environmental drivers for migration. The issue of rights for those who are environmentally displaced and associated questions of human security are urgent matters of policy (Boana et al 2007). From human rights perspective, security is a useful framework for policy development. The question of human security is important because environmental change does not undermine human security in isolation from a wider range of social factors like poverty, the degree of state support to a community, access to economic opportunities, effectiveness of decision making processes and the degree of social cohesion within and around vulnerable groups (ibid).
Environmental factors are always linked with social, political and economic issues (Hayden 2006). Studies confirmed the relationship between environmental degradation and human migration despite inability to disentangle multiple factors. Some researchers argue for studies that look at environmental factors as elements within larger networks, effectively exploring the linkages rather than trying to make conceptual understanding (Lehman 2009). To understand the linkages, case studies relating to forced migration and environmental factors are necessary. These case studies must then scaled up as common threads and identified in order to provide a sort of all-embracing framework for the understanding of the environment as a crucial factor in the study of human migration (Henry et al 2004; Castles 2002). Here, a specific case of forced displacees caused by natural disaster - like flood - in a specific context like a national park environment, where several conservation rules and regulations have been enforced, has been presented. In the next section, the study area, the people, and what happens when an entire village is washed out and the villagers are forced to migrate to the nearby region within the national park - and their socio-economic consequences in post displacement period - will be analysed.
III. CASE STUDY: BUXA TIGER RESERVE
Location and Span: The Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR) has dense, diverse vegetation cover and can boast of a rich wildlife. It is located in Alipurduar subdivision of Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal. It stretches over a length of 50 km from west to east and 35km from north to south. The total area of the Reserve is 760.87 sq. km; of which 385.02 sq. km constitute the Buxa Sanctuary and National Park and the rest (375.85 sq. km) falling outside the sanctuary is considered to be a buffer area. On the eastern side of BTR lies the border area of Assam, the demarcating line being the Sankosh River. The Reserve is bounded on the north by the border areas of Bhutan. A number of tea gardens and cultivable lands demarcate the western and southern boundaries of the Reserve.
Biological significance: It is located in the confluence of three major bio-geographic zones, viz. Lower Gangetic plains (7B), Central Himalayas (2C), and Brahmaputra Valley (8A). The tiger (Panthera tigris), the national animal, constitutes the most important fauna in the reserve. It reveals a number of elements of bio-diversity of North-East India, one of the most bio-diverse Indian regions (Management Plan of BTR-1999 to 2009). The endangered Indo-Malayan species like the Chinese pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) and the reticulated python (Python reticulatus), the rare clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata), black-necked crane (Grus nigriocollis), etc., which represent some of the endemic species of North-East zone, are present in the Reserve (Das 2009). Moreover, the Reserve acts as a carbon sink of the region. The mountain ranges intercept rain-laden clouds and recharge ground water. It protects the catchments of several rivers and streams, thereby reducing soil erosion and maintaining water regime. It sustains the economic prosperity of the region through downstream irrigation.
Floral and faunal diversity: More than 50 per cent of the plant species of India are represented in North-East India. Of these 60 per cent are endemic. BTR has many of those characteristics and the present checklist shows 352 species of trees, 133 species of shrubs, 189 species of herbs, 108 species of climbers, 144 species of orchids, 46 species of grasses and reeds, 6 species of cane and 4 species of bamboo. Along with the floral diversity, the BTR has a wide range of faunal diversity. There are 68 species of mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 246 species of birds, 4 species of amphibians and 33 species of fishes identified within the reserve. A study on the entomofauna of BTR listed 500 species of insects belonging to 13 Orders, 65 Families and 229 Genera (Management Plan of BTR-1999 to 2009).
People and economy: BTR has 37 forest villages and four fixed demand holdings within its boundary with a population of 18,100 (1991 census). Twelve forest villages and 2 fixed demand holdings are located within the core areas of BTR. In the forest villages, about 2919 families have been residing. Of them, the dominant ethnic groups are Nepali, Rabha and Oraon (Das 2005a). BTR is also encircled by 34 tea gardens and 46 revenue villages on the western and southern sides (2 km from the park boundary). The human population of these revenue villages is 95,049 (1991). The predominant ethnic groups in these revenue villages are Rajbansi, Mech and migrant Bengalis (Das 2009).
The cultivation of paddy, maize, marwa and millets using rainwater is the prime economic activity of forest villagers of BTR owing to the absence of any irrigation facility. Sale of milk, areca nut, bamboo and NTFPs is the complementary source of income for sustaining the daily needs of families, particularly in forest villages (Das, 2005b). Assets like livestock form an emergency source of income, especially during rituals and festivals, or while bearing the cost of medical treatment, education or disaster management (Das 2009). Employment opportunities for both forest villagers and fringe dwellers got drastically reduced due to ban on clear felling coupes (CFC) and artificial regeneration operations, because of the creation of Tiger Reserve in 1983. One estimate suggests that villagers used to be employed in timber harvesting and plantation work for about four months a year prior to 1983. In 1984, about 5.9 lakh man-days had been created, which had dropped to 2.775 lakh man-days in 1991, within a gap of 7 years [Management plan for BTR (1999-2009)]. This has increased dependence of local people on natural resources of the Reserve for sustaining their livelihood, which has become a serious cause of deterioration of habitat. Moreover, a ban on dolomite mining and restrictions on collection of boulders from the core areas led to conflicts between forest managers with the local inhabitants, as well as a large section of the adjoining population.
In revenue villages, about one-fourth of the villagers are landless or are share-croppers, and are largely engaged as agricultural or daily labourers. Small and marginal farmers constitute a majority of the working population. About one-fourth of the total cultivable lands have been brought under minor irrigation system. Villagers from revenue areas cultivate paddy, potato, jute, mustard and other vegetables. Landless people are engaged as agricultural labourers, daily labourers at panchayat (three tier system of local government) works, in selling firewood, and forest departmental works. Some members sustain their livelihood from small-scale businesses in vegetables, cattle, areca nuts, etc. A fair number of youth have migrated to northern parts of India to work as daily labourers in industries.

Study Village:
Bangdoba, a forest village, is under the administrative control of BTR. However, this village came under the three-tier 'panchayat' system on 1998. This forest village was established before independence. Villagers were allowed to settle in the forest in connection with the scheme of taungya system (a form of agro forestry; will be discussed later). Under taungya, forest department provided five acres of cultivable land, one pair of plough bullocks and two milch cows for each household. The Sankosh, a perennial river, originates from Tibet and passes through Bhutan. It changed its course and shifted westwards in 1921, and since then it has been flowing through and eroding the Bholka forest's northern and southern areas. Due to inundation of the area, teak and other plantations did not survive and tall grasses started to invade the area. Its principal tributary is the Gholani on its west bank. In June, 1998, the Gholani started shifting its course westwards, damaging all agricultural and homestead lands badly and depositing huge amounts of sand and silt on the village agricultural land. As a result, villagers were forced to migrate to other areas and resettled by clearing plantation areas. Moreover, heavy deposition of sand also caused drying of teak plantations of nearby forest compartments (Management Plan of BTR- 1999-2009).
Chronology of events experienced by the village:
The then British Govt. encouraged local people in settling at Buxa forest division for exploiting forest resources with establishment of forest bastees. Bangdoba village is one of the 37 forest villages inside Buxa Tiger Reserve. Since then, the villagers have had to face a number of problematic events, and finally have been forced to resettle in other plantation areas of the park. The events are as follows:

Period
Events
Before Independence
Establishment of Bangdoba village. Inhabited by Nepalis, Santals and Ravas;
1966
Social conflict within community of the village. Some families of Santal community fled to Assam;
1968
Huge damage to agricultural and homestead lands caused by deposition of sand on the lands due to flood. Agricultural and homestead lands of four families washed out ;
1969
Last agreement with villagers. Total agreement holders-
Nepali-16, Santal-6, Rava-3;
1983
Buxa Tiger Reserve constituted. Stopped employment in timber harvesting and plantation works ;
June 1998
Flood occurred. Village washed out and huge sand and silt on cultivable land was deposited due to changing course of Gholani river, a principal tributary of Sankosh river. Temporary camp at Daldali School where villagers stayed for 10 days;
July 1998
Villagers shifted to primary school area of Khuttimari. Stayed until 25th August, 1999;
26 August 1999
The displaced villagers encroached and settled in about 20-22 acres of land at SB-1 and SB-4 compartment of Ghoramara beat of Bholka Range after flood in school campus of Khuttimari; the floods have already damaged whole of 1998 plantation; 1997 and 1989 plantations were damaged partially.
July 1998 to August 1999
Continuous appeal and demonstration to forest and civil administration for resettlement yielded no results;

Socio–economic profile in terms of forced relocation:
Socio-economic profile before forced resettlement:
Nature of Population: The village has a total population of 238, in 47 families. Out of 47 families, 22 families belong to Nepali, 16 families to Santal and 9 families to Rava community. From ethnic dimension, Nepalis are the most dominant community in this village. Santal, a tribal group, represent second most numerically dominant group. The Nepali community has largest family size - nearly six in number on average. However, sex ratio varies. The total female population is higher than male population in both Nepali and Santal communities. However a reverse trend is observed among the Rava community.
Family income before resettlement: Forest villagers became impoverished due to reduced employment opportunity with the paradigm shift from commercial forestry to conservation forestry. Prior to declaration of the area as a tiger reserve, villagers used to be employed in timber harvesting and plantation work for nearly 100-120 days a year. It is observed that the employment generation of 5.9 lakh man-days during the year 1984 has dwindled to 2.775 lakh man days in 1991 [Das, Management plan for BTR (1999-2009)]. Moreover, ban on dolomite mining and restrictions on collection boulders from the core areas led to conflicts with large sections of adjoining population, as well as with many Government Departments (Das 1999). Analysis of the survey revealed that all the households earn less than 4 dollar per day. At the disaggregate level, there is wide disparity of income among the population of this village. Nearly half of the total population had family income less than Rs.2000/- per month whereas the other half had family income more than Rs. 6000/- per month (Table 1). Community wise, Nepalis earn more money and are hence better off. It is also observed that the family income of Santals and Ravas is less in comparison to Nepali families.
Table 1: Percentage of total family income among different ethnic groups before displacement due to flood
Income range per month (in Rs.)
Nepali
Santal
Rava
Total
2000
12.77
21.28
12.77
46.81
4000
-
4.25
-
4.25
> 6000
34.04
8.51
6.38
48.94

Socio-economic status after forced resettlement:
Major processes of 'further' impoverishment:
Any type of forced relocation from original habitat can not only lead to economic uprooting but also social and cultural impoverishment, reflecting the fact that displaced people lose natural capital, man-made capital, human capital and social capital (Cernea, 1995, 1997). Forced relocation for any reason has multifaceted adverse effects on displacees. Michael Cernea identified these multifaceted effects into identifiable major components such as landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, increased morbidity, loss of access to common property and social disarticulation, based on experiences on development-induced displacements all over the globe (Cernea 2000). Here is an account of the extent of impoverishment among flood-disaster-induced displaced population in specific forest environment like in national parks.
Loss of productive assets:
Land is the basic foundation upon which people's productive systems, economic activities and livelihoods are based (Cernea 1997). Each member of such forest villages has to sign an agreement form every year, issued by the forest department, for ensuring labour from the former for plantation and fire protection measures (Anon 1970). As per agreement, land has been provided for cultivation and homestead @ 2.5 acres in plains (wet area) and 1.5 acres in hills (dry area) per family. So, the forest villagers were allotted land and residential hut without ownership right on land. Such agreement contained rules and regulations laid down by the forest department, and the workers were liable to contribute their labour for the forest department. Under any circumstances villager could not violate the contract.
In pre-displacement period, villagers had about 147 acres of cultivable land with homestead lands. Huge damage to lands occurred due to massive deposition of sand and silt by the river and its floods, which made it unproductive. As a result, the villagers became virtually landless in earlier settlement. Affected families become severely impoverished because villagers' primary occupation was agriculture and sale of products from homestead lands in pre-displacement period. The displaced people destroyed nearby plantation areas and relocated themselves on their own. But what is worth mentioning is that dominance of ethnic groups play a role in settlement pattern in the encroached area. It is observed that the Nepalis, the numerically dominant and economically better off group, kept most of the encroached lands in their possession (about 80%) with better communication. This dominant group has allotted only a small amount of poor-quality land, that too in relatively remote areas for only house construction, to other members belonging to minority ethnic groups like Santals and Ravas who are economically weaker (Das 2009). However, settlement pattern among these groups was mixed in earlier settlement area. Most of the households of dominant community sowed mustards in areas adjacent to their homes. But the tribal people did not, as they had no land or money for cultivation. So, even in possession of encroached land, power dynamics played a major role in self-resettlement.
Loss of income and subsistence:
Any type involuntary relocation to a new place may lead to loss of income of the displaced population. Studies by the author revealed that people of the park sustain their livelihood through very small scale cultivation based on rain water, sale of milk and forest products. Dependency on sale of milk and forest products has increased after banning of clear felling coupes and regeneration of plants (which earlier provided employment as labour), due to creation of Protected Areas (Das 2005 a); thus, their income level has drastically reduced. Furthermore, their access to forest resources has been severely curtailed, making people more vulnerable and marginalized. As a result most of the villagers' income is less than one dollar per day as stated earlier. In fact, these villagers belong to the poorest section of the society in India. Similar observation is available in most of the central African countries (Sayer 2007).
Almost all the displaced people lost their cultivable lands where they could cultivate yields, and thereby got disengaged from production systems. A small portion of these families are trying to cultivate crops in very small homestead lands. Very few families are engaged in agricultural work in other villagers' lands and as daily labourers in panchayat works. Income from sale of areca nuts from homestead gardens played an important role for forest villagers in pre-displacement site. Due to the washout of homestead lands, villagers also lost another income source, making them even poorer.
Villagers' income for subsistence and survival heavily depended on sale of cattle population, goats and pigs, daily labourers, sale of firewood, savings and other assets created before displacement. It is found that more than 65% of total bullocks were sold by villagers (Table 2). Villagers also sold more than 70% goats and more than 55% milch cow for their daily food needs. Money had been spent for daily needs within 3-4 months of displacement. In addition, Nepalis are using their savings for survival, while among Santal and Rava communities, people are highly dependent on income from daily labour. They are sustaining their daily needs from sale of firewood and collection of edible fruits and vegetables from forests.
Table 2: Extent of sale of livestock, after displacement due to flood,
among different ethnic groups:
Ethnic groups
Bullock
Milch Cow
Goat

total
% of sale
total
% of sale
Total
% of sale
Nepali
50
66.0
44
56.82
45
71.11
Santal
14
71.43
12
66.67
24
87.5
Rava
10
100.0
6
50.0
9
100.0

As employment opportunities are less in this region, an appreciable number of young men migrated to northern and western parts of India to work in companies and factories as daily labourers, peons and attendants or in other similar jobs. About 40 percent of the male family members of all ethnic groups migrated to Punjab and Gujarat (Table 3). In fact, Nepalis are more migratory, as more than 60 percent of male members migrated to other states for jobs. On the other hand, migration rate is far less (about 20%) in Santal and Rava community (Das 2009).
Table 3: Variation in status of migration among different ethnic
groups (in %) after displacement
No. of members
within family
Nepali
Santal
Rava
Total
None
36.36
81.25
77.78
59.57
One
40.91
18.75
11.11
27.66
Two
13.64
-
11.11
8.51
Three
9.09
-
-
4.26

While describing his own status in this period, a member of the Nepali community expressed in the following manner:

"I had one acre of agricultural land. Here I got only 0.33 acre in homestead area. I and my 6 family members stayed at the school for a year. During this period I spent whatever savings I had and sold most of my bullocks, goats and even milch cows to sustain my family needs. In this age I am unable to work as a daily labourer. My son has migrated to north India and is working as an attendant in a factory. He is sending us some money. Using that sum, I am trying hard to provide food to my family members daily".

On the other hand, tribals' survival strategy may be revealed from one member's reaction:

"Earlier I had some land for cultivation. But now I am landless. I have sold my livestock to satisfy our daily needs. I have no other source of income. Now, I cannot provide food to my family daily. I can feed my children only when I earn some money through labour or by selling firewood. Otherwise we remain with empty stomachs. Sometimes, I collect tubers, roots and leaves from the forest to save my family from hunger".

Loss of shelter:
During establishment of forest villages to secure a constant labour force, the Forest Dept. provided a wooden residential hut with a corrugated sheet/tin roof to each agreement holder (Anon 1970). With the disintegration of joint family, number of non-agreement holders increased, but they were not provided such houses as agreement ceased in 1969. However, they had erected huts with resources available in the park.
After forced displacement, resettlers tried to make shelter in the encroached land within the reserve. Dominant groups like Nepalis acquired 80ft x 80ft space for house construction. They have already erected wooden houses with poles, using forest resources in addition to cash expenses. On the other hand, tribals had been allotted meagre land area for house construction. They made just temporary sheds with polythene sheets for shelter. They could not erect houses as they had little cash in hand (Das 2009).
Food insecurity:
It is widely accepted that right to land use can provide sustained food security. Lack of land use rights could lead to food insecurity among resettlers, leading to poor nutritional status. It eventually leads to increased mortality and morbidity. At the relocated site, the resettled population only possessed land for shelter with only some land left for cultivation, making itself more vulnerable to food insecurity. Now, these people are deprived of income opportunities. In fact, they are not able to earn money due to less opportunity for work in the nearby region as they have to compete with the neighbours. As a result, people do not get daily food for sustenance. They have to survive on sale of firewood as well as collection of edible roots, fruits, tubers, vegetables and leaves in the forest.


Dismantling social networks:
Sudden dislocation due to flood disaster creates social disintegration among forest villagers of different ethnic groups. Furthermore, politically weak and vulnerable communities are further disempowered by relocation from their original habitat (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2006). During crunch situations, powerful and elite groups generally try to get important benefits, depriving other poor and marginalized groups. This trend can resurface in relocation areas, creating further social distance among them. In this case, a sense of social distance is evident during resettlement in the encroached area. For example, as mentioned earlier, Nepalis, a dominant and powerful group acquired land with better communication and accessibility than Santal and Rava populations. This finding can be observed from the opinion given by members of those communities. One member from the Nepali community expressed his view in the following way:
"They are adivashis. They like to live in remote forest areas. During the distribution of land we had discussed with them. We tried our best to maintain arrangement of earlier settlement here. After discussion, we have allotted land for house reconstruction to them in that area. We are the same villagers. Nobody expressed resentment about land distribution. So the question does not arise."

But the tribal people expressed their view about the socio-economic reality in a different way. One person from the Santal community said in the following way:

"We are very poor. People do not listen to us as we are a small group and our economic condition is very backward. We cannot compete with them. We cannot protest. We have to accept their proposal about land distribution".

That means a trend of exploitation over tribal, marginalized groups by socially and economically powerful groups, exists.
So, there are no appreciable differences between the problems faced by flood disaster induced resettlers and those caused by developmental interventions. Problems faced by flood-induced displacees in a park are more or less the same as we observed in the case of 'forced resettlers' caused by developmental interventions. However, there are some exceptions. For example, in this case study, the displaced people were forced to 'encroach' into other areas within the park, but their access to common property resources was not curtailed. As forest villagers have no legal right over ownership of land (Anon 1970), but reside in ancestral place as per agreement stated earlier, they become more vulnerable in new areas after flood disaster. They are more marginalized in newly settled area as they lose lands and shelter, which they earlier possessed as per agreement with forest department. This is even worse in case of non-agreement holders (Das 2009). They are treated as 'encroachers' by forest managers without any right over land. This may lead to forceful eviction of forest villagers from the reserve by forest authorities due to their changing perception and attitudes towards forest villagers. But the question is, should we call them 'encroachers' now just because their contribution is not needed by the Forest Department anymore, particularly since the contribution of these same forest villagers was crucial during the commercial forestry regime, that proved to be a heavy revenue generator of the Department? The issue will be dealt with later.

IV. Why flood disasters?
Locational disadvantage and Forest Laws: Causes of recurrent Floods
It has been reported that BTR is experiencing recurrent floods, which have become an annual feature leading to huge damage to forest habitats and human settlements (Management Plan of BTR 1999-2009). Local people are either under threat of displacement or are forcefully dislocated (Das 2009). Why is this happening? What are its major causes? It may be suggested that the Reserve is facing two major problems that exacerbate flood disaster, destroying forest habitat and the lives and livelihoods of the local villagers inhabiting the Reserve.
Changing Course of Rivers: Loss of Forest Habitats
Wildlife habitats have been destroyed several times due to recurrent floods in the flood plains of rivers which have originated from the Himalayan region and which pass through the Reserve. Floods also cause huge damage to high forests and plantation areas of the Reserve. Accumulation of flood water in the forest area creates a condition of 'physiological drought' and as a result, trees die out in large number. The sand and debris carried down and deposited by flood water on the forest surface area reduces moisture holding capacity of the soil, resulting in the drying up and death of standing trees. Devastating floods have been reported in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1968 and 1993, causing extensive loss to the habitat of the Reserve. In 1968, the flood of Rydak River had destroyed huge tracts of the central Rydak and Marakhata block. It left a long trail of sandy beds on either side of its main course (Management plan of BTR, 1999-2009). The same report mentioned that a huge area of the Reserve suffered extensively due to heavy rains on 18th July (922 mm) 1993. The flood caused havoc to vegetation and forest lands. Since 1922-23, Sankosh, a principal river, has moved westwards and crossed through the north and south Bholka forests, leading to inundation of the entire forest area. 'Sal' (Shorea robusta) and other trees died sporadically and in patches and were replaced by tall grass.
Map 2: Major rivers originating from northern part and passing through Buxa Tiger Reserve, northern West Bengal, India

In the year 1998, Gholani, the main tributary of Sankosh, shifted its direction westwards damaging severely Bangdoba forest village and in the process deposited huge sand and silt on forest lands. This has caused drying of 'teak' plantation in certain areas (ibid). Another river, the Rydak, which flows through various blocks of the Reserve, changed its course several times in 1905, 1930, 1933, 1950 and 1968. When flood occurred, it passed through the old course of the river along the central Rydak and Marakhata forest block, causing extensive damage to the forest tracts. However, chance of flood has considerably reduced due to construction of embankments across the old Rydak. But again, the main course has been bifurcated. This river again shifted its course towards east near Newlands area and destroyed about 100 hectares of plantations in Newland block. Jainti, another river, originates from the Bhutan hills and flows southwards, often changing its course. It has damaged important habitats of core areas of the Reserve. Change of course and its consequent bank erosion threaten human settlements as well as forest establishment. Bala River has caused severe damage to the standing forest crop in south Rajabhatkhawa and Checko blocks since the flood in 1950. Recently, floods of the Bala River have damaged valuable standing 'sal' forests of Damanpur and Checko compartments. In the year 1998, Dima River changed its course and moved westwards and washed out a large area of 'teak' plantation of Dima compartments. Now, Dima is flowing near forest establishment leaving the older course. Similarly, Pana River also caused huge damage to Pana and Bhutri forest blocks (ibid). So it may be said that the changing courses of rivers intercepting the Reserve and consequent flood disasters cause huge damage to forest habitats and human settlements, making ecosystem more fragmented.
But what are the probable causes that lead to increased flood disaster? It has already been mentioned that this reserve is intercepted by several rivers and streams (or jhoras) which generally originate from the Eastern Himalayan region bordering Bhutan in the northern part of India. Sankosh, Rydak, Jayanti, Bala, Dima and Gaburbasra are the principal rivers. Rivers like Sankosh and Rydak originate from Tibet in the eastern Himalayas and pass through Bhutan hills. However, other rivers such as Jayanti, Dima, Pana, Bala and Gaburbasra originate from the Bhutan hills and flow southwards (Management plan of BTR 1999-2009). These rivers intercept the various areas of the forest habitat of Buxa and frequently change their main course causing extensive loss of the forest habitat during flood, as has already been reported.
The habitats have been destroyed due to recurrent floods in the plains, caused by the principal rivers mentioned before. In the months of July and August, the monsoon is at its peak in the region; consequently, the hilly rivers and streams are at their destructive best. Boulders, debris, trees, etc. are carried downstream, which get accumulated at places and form barriers. As a result, the original river beds are raised in relation to banks of the river, leading to diversion of rivers and streams. It leads to huge destruction of plantations and human settlements in the Reserve. Continuous erosion of banks and intermittent landslides add to the accumulation of boulders, bed materials, debris and trees. The river-beds have become silted and have reached the level of the adjoining settlements or roads, or have even risen above the settlement level or roads, causing severe flood and loss of cultivable lands of villagers, wildlife habitats and plantations. It has been observed that siltation is occurring at an alarmingly high rate of 2 feet to 4 feet per year at a few places (Khalid and Patel 1999). Estimate suggests that about 1596 hectares of forest area were damaged due to changed courses of streams (jhoras) and rivers within the Reserve (Table 1).
Table 1: Affected areas due to changing course of rivers which pass
through the Buxa Tiger Reserve
Sl no
River/Jhora (stream)
Range
Total area affected (in hectares)
1.
Jayanti
Jayanti
250
2.
Rydak II
Kumargram
230
3.
Kalikhola
Do
14
4.
Sankosh
Do
01
5.
Hathinalajhora
Do
12
6.
Khuruljhora
Do
05
7.
Dima
Buxaduar
400
8.
Buxajhora
Do
300
9.
Bala
Do
300
10.
Pana (at Hathinala)
Pana
15
11.
Gangutiajhora
Do
02
12.
Raimatong
Do
15
13.
Swetikhola
Do
02
14.
Rydak I
North Rydak
15
15.
Dhoksha
Do
20
16.
Basra
Hamiltonganj
15
Total
1596
Source: Khalid and Patel 1999
Existing Forest Laws and regulations:
Despite these huge damages to plantation and settlement areas due to frequent changing of the courses of rivers and streams, forest authorities are not authorised, as they claimed, to remove boulders, debris or trees from the river course caused by persistent erosion of river banks and intermittent landslides, leading to heavy siltation and blocking of original courses of rivers. But why are the forest managers denied the permission for removal? The critical factor is the universal adoption of the western philosophy of forest management, particularly in developing countries. Wildlife biologists and conservationists believed that conservation of biodiversity could only be done without any kind of human interference (Shah 2007), and the creation of 'inviolate space' seemed to be the best way to preserve the remaining biodiversity of the earth. One of the basic assumptions of this paradigm is that human interference invariably causes disturbance to wildlife and degrades biodiversity. Following this 'Yellowstone National Park model' of management strategy, a legal framework was constituted in India in 1972, which is popularly known as Wild life Protection Act (1972). It seeks to exclude local communities from the forest reserve to stop biotic pressure.
Under WLPA, there are three categories of protected Areas (PAs): national parks (NPs), wildlife sanctuaries (WSs), and closed areas. NPs are given the highest level of legal enforcement where all human activities are to be stopped (Pathak and Kothari 1998). No grazing and private land holding or rights are permitted within them. Wildlife sanctuaries are given a lesser level of legal protection and certain activities may be permitted within them for better protection of wildlife. Here, human activities like collection of fallen and dead wood, grazing and habitation are allowed, subject, however, to the approval of the District Collector in consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden (the highest official in wildlife wing). So, it is a kind concession, not a right over resources. It has tremendous implication on the question of local people's access to livelihood. A blanket restriction on human activities, as in the case of NPs, and severe restrictions on resource extraction, as in WSs, have been a recipe for further impoverishment of the local people and have given rise to conflicts between local people and PA managers (Kothari 2005, Mukherjee 2009). In fact, these rules and regulations actually threaten the lives and livelihoods of the forest villagers as well as the ecosystem and plantation areas, especially in situations like BTR where frequent and devastating floods occur accompanied by continuous changing of the courses of rivers and streams. As there is an increasing trend of soil erosion and landslides in hilly regions with changing climate, as well as increased deforestation and infrastructural development activities in Bhutan areas, excessive boulders and debris are carried over which get accumulated in the lower part of the river courses, forming barriers (Das 2009). Extraction of such things like dead, diseased wood, boulders, debris, etc., has been stopped by the Supreme Court ruling passed on 2000. Consequently, the MoEF released a 'Hand book of FCA, 1980; FC Rules 2004 and Guidelines and Clarifications', in which the order was stated:
'The Supreme Court has passed an order on 14.2.2000 restraining removal of dead , diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, drift wood and grasses etc., from any national park or Game Sanctuary.......In view of this, rights and concessions cannot be enjoyed in the Protected Areas(PAs).'
This order has resulted in widespread ramifications in ecological as well as livelihood aspects of the forest villagers of BTR. In ecological sense, huge damage to wildlife habitats has occurred, as observed here, due to changed courses of streams (jhoras) and rivers. On the other hand, already excluded forest-dependent communities are marginalised further as some cultivable as well as homestead lands have been lost or have come under the threat of loss due to frequent course-changing of rivers and streams and consequent flood disasters. Moreover, income opportunity from the collection of boulders and bed materials has been stopped due to enforcement of existing laws under WLPA 1972. One estimate suggests that about 2500 persons may get employment for about 8 months per year from the removal of boulder or bed materials (Khalid and Patel 1999). This will certainly help in developing a positive attitude towards forests and decrease dependency on forest resources to sustain livelihood.
V. Locating 'Flood Disaster Displacees' in 'Environmental refugee'
A major issue in case of environmentally displaced persons revolves around the question of international recognition or status. Zetter noted how more and more groups of forced migrants are being tagged as 'refugees'. This speculation on the labels of 'forced migrants' and 'refugees' - according to him - is problematic, not least for its conceptual inadequacy in interpreting the complex structural causes and consequences of journey (2007). Many authors are against the inclusion of people who are displaced due to environmental reasons under 'Convention Refugees'. They express concern that any expansion of the definition would lead to a devaluation of the current protection of convention refugees (Boana et al 2007). But these 'forced migrants' have undoubtedly been forced out of their traditional habitats. There is no consensus for extending the refugee regime to environmental refugees, because most 'receiving states want to restrict it further rather than improve it' (Castles 2002). Some authors, however, stressed on experiences of displacees due to involuntary relocation rather than on the causes of their flight or their status in international law (Turton 2003). While considering 'environmental refugee' as an indicator of Bangladesh's development problems, Islam (1992) argued that those migrants should be considered as 'refugees' who are forced to leave an area for fear of dying as a result of environmental destruction. In this case, forest villagers have been displaced from their original habitat permanently and are experiencing refugee-like situations in their day to day activities in the relocated area. Here forest villagers were actually forced to leave due to flood disaster, as their entire settlement and agricultural lands were completely washed out and made uncultivable by floods. It is also observed that other forest villages are also under the threat of extinction due to changing river courses across the Reserve, which leads to destruction of forest habitat. So here lies a well-founded fear of persecution by flood disaster that has a linkage with ecosystem fragmentation due to human intervention. They should be considered as 'environmental refugees' or 'environmentally displaced persons'. Though it is observed that flood disaster is the immediate cause of forced relocation but it is difficult to identify factors which cause recurrent floods. The present case tries to show some sort of linkages between environmental degradation, locational disadvantage and enforcement of conservation laws and consequent effect in terms of flood disaster. The ecosystems of sub-Himalayan region have been fragmented due to migration, economic development and population increase as well as climate change. This fragmentation often causes soil erosion, mass wasting, landslides, etc., that ultimately affect the areas downstream. As discussed earlier, this Reserve located in the foothills of sub-Himalayan region faces two major problems. Firstly, numerous rivers and streams originate from eastern Himalayas bordering Bhutan and flow southwards, intercepting the reserve. They constantly change their courses, causing huge destruction to plantation areas as well as cultivable lands and settlement areas of the Reserve. Secondly, persistent erosion of banks and intermittent landslides add to the misery of rivers and streams, in addition to severe monsoons which cause severe floods and loss of cultivable lands of villagers, wildlife habitats and plantations almost every year. As a result, huge tracts of plantation areas are being destroyed every year, reducing forest biomass within the protected area. In addition, existing conservation laws banning removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees; drift wood; boulders; river-bed materials and grasses, further amplified a dangerous outcome due to human intervention. As a result, the river-beds have become silted and have risen to the level of the adjoining settlements or roads or have even risen above that level, causing severe floods and loss of cultivable lands of villagers, wildlife habitats and plantations (Das 2009). So, flood disaster in this case, is the result of interaction of anthropogenic and natural disruptions in the environment. Most importantly, forest villagers are either facing continuous threat of destruction of assets or are being compelled to leave the original settlement causing further impoverishment, as we observed in the present case study. So this group of 'flood disaster displacees' should be categorised as 'environmental refugees' due to combination of natural and developmental measures, which may be termed as 'unnatural disaster' as conceived by Jacobson (1988).

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The question is - why are we giving so much importance in locating this group of 'flood disaster displacees' in the environmental refugee discourse? This is important for giving recognition to the changing status of forest villagers due to flood disaster, which places them in a refugee-like situation in post-displacement period. The forest villages within the reserve are also under the threat of dislocation. Whether this group of flood disaster displacees should be conceptualised as 'environmental refugees' or 'environmentally displaced persons', may be a matter of debate, but their experiences are in way no less than 'forced resettlers' due to development-caused displacement or 'refugee' situation. So these people need recognition and protection. Of course, they are not entitled to get assistance and protection as per international refugee law. In international refugee law, environmental conditions do not constitute a basis for international protection (Kibreab 1997). Similarly, 'forced resettlers' are also getting recognition and assistance from rehabilitation and resettlement policies. So there is an urgent need for recognition, protection and resettlement of this sort of 'environmental refugees'. As these people have been residing in those areas for years and have contributed to the states' revenue during the 'commercial forestry regime', they have the right to get recognition, protection and assistance from state agencies. We need to recognise the problem and evolve policies and strategies for 'flood disaster displacees' taking into consideration the impoverishment of the dispossessed population.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I want to express my gratitude to Mr. S. S. Bist, Ex-Field Director of BTR for constant inspiration and help in conducting field work. I would especially like to express my gratitude for Dr. Abhijit Guha, Professor, Department of Anthropology, Vidyasagar University for comments on the paper. I am grateful to the village headman and other villagers of Bangdoba forest village of Buxa Tiger Reserve for extending help and support during fieldwork.

REFERENCES:
Anon, 1970. "Sixth Working Plan of Buxa Tiger Reserve (Northern Circle) 1965-66 to 1974-1975"; Vol. I, Dept. of Forests, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
Barutciski, M. 2000. " Addressing legal constraints and improving outcomes in Development induced Resettlement Projects". Desk Study, Department for International Development ESCOR funded Project R 7305, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford.
Bates, D C. 2002. "Environmental Refugees? Classifying human migrations caused by environmental change." Population and Environment, 23(5): 465-477.
Beniston, M. 2003. "Climate Change in Mountain regions: a review of possible impacts." Climate Change 59:5-31.
Bilsborrow, R. 1992. "Rural poverty, migration and the environment in developing countries: three case studies." Background paper for World Development Report .Washington: The World Bank.
Black, R. 2001. "Environmental refugees: myth or reality? , New Issues in Refugee research." Working paper no 34, UNHCR.
Boana, C., R. Zetter and T. Morris. 2007. "Environmentally displaced people: Understanding the linkages between environmental change, livelihoods and forced migration." Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, University of Oxford.
Bromley, DW. and MM. Cernea. 1989. "The management of common property natural resources." World Bank Discussion paper W 57, Washington DC : World Bank
Castles, S. 2002. "Environmental change and forced migration: making sense of the debate." New Issues in Refugee research Working Paper 70, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva.
Cernea , M. M. 1997. "The risks and reconstruction model for resettling Displaced Populations." World Development , 25 (10): 1569-1588.
Cernea, MM. 2000. " Risk, safeguards and reconstruction: A model for population displacement and resettlement." In M Cernea and C McDowell (eds) Risk and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. World Bank, Washington.
Cernea, MM and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy issues in Conservation and Resettlement. World Development, 34(10): 1808-1830.
Cernea, M. M. 1995. "Understanding and Preventing Impoverishment from displacement." Journal of Refugee Studies, 8( 3).
Chettri, N , E. Sharma , B. Shakya , R. Thapa , B. Bajracharya , K. Uddin , K. P . Oli and D. Choudhury, 2010. "Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Status, Trends, and Vulnerability to Climate change." Climate change impact and vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas – Technical Report 2 . Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Christian Aid. 2007. "Human Tide: The real migration crisis." http: www:christianaid.org.uk/imageshuman tide.pdf
Conisbee, M. and A. Simms. 2003. "Environmental refugees: the case of recognition." London: New Economic Foundation. EACH for 2009. Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios: Synthesis report.
Cooper, J. 1998. "Environmental Refugees : meeting the requirements of the refugee convention ." New York University Environmental Law Journal, 6: 480-529.
Das, B. K. 2009. "Flood Disasters and Forest Villagers in Sub Himalayan Bengal." Economic and Political Weekly , vol XLIV , No. 4 , January 24-30.
Das, B.K.. 2005 a. "Growth of Ethnic groups in forest villages of Buxa Tiger Reserve, West Bengal." Indian Forester, Vol. 131, No.4.
Das, B..K.. 2005 b. "Role of NTFPs among forest villagers in a protected area of West Bengal" .Journal of Human Ecology Vol. 18 No.2 .
Das, S.C. 1999. "Management plan for Buxa Tiger Reserve (1999-2009)." Dept. of Forests. Govt. of West Bengal, India.
de Wet, C. 2006.. "Risk, complexity and local initiative in forced resettlement outcomes." In: Chris de Wet (ed) Development induced displacement: problems, policies, and people, New York : Berghahn Books.
Dun, O. and F. Gemenne. 2008. "Defining "Environmental migration". Forced Migration Review, 31: 10.
El-Hinnawi, E. 1985. "Environmental refugees." United Nations Environmental programme, Nairobi.
Gorlick, B, 2007, "Environmentally displaced persons: A UNHCR perspective." WWW: ony.unu.edu/seminars/2007/16May2007/presentation_gorlick.ppt
Hathaway, J. 1991. The Law of Refugee status, Toronto: Butterworth.
Hayden, B. 2006. "What's in a name ? The nature of the individual in refugee studies." Journal of Refugee studies , 19(4):471-487.
Henry, S.., V Piche., D, Ouedraogo and EF. Lambin. 2004. "Descriptive analysis of the individual migratory pathways according to environmental typologies." Population and Environment , 25(5) : 397-422.
Hugo, G. 1996. "Environmental concerns and international migration." International migration review 30(1): 105-131.
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre ( IDMC). 2012. "Global estimates: people displaced by natural hazard induced disasters." Norwegian Refugee Council
IOM, 2007. Discussion note, "Migration and the Environment." International Organization for Migration, Geneva, hhtp:www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared.mainsite/about_iom/en/council/94 /MC_NF_288.pdf
Islam, M. 1992. Natural calamities and environmental refugees in Bangladesh, Refuge: Canada's periodical on Refugees, 12(1):5-10.
Jacobson, J. 1988. Environmental refugees: A Yardstick of habitability, World watch paper no 86, World Watch Institute, Washington DC.
Karlsson, B. 2000. Contested Belonging: An Indigenous People's struggle for forest and identity in Sub Himalayan Bengal, Curzon Press, Richmond, Surrey.
Khalid, M.A and Patel, S. 1999. " Ecological assessment of habitat loss due to boulder/bed material deposit in rivers of Buxa Tiger Reserve: A Research Report." Dept. of Forests, Govt. of West Bengal.
Kibraeb, G. 2000. "Common property resources and resettlement." In: Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. Ed.by MM Cernea and C McDowell .Washington DC : The World Bank. Pp. 293-331.
Kothari, A. 2005. Conservation policies set stages for nationwide conflicts. Indianjungles.com 03.01.2005.
Lehman, J. 2009. "Environmental refugees: The construction of crisis." Prepared for the UHU-EHS Summer Academy 2009.
Lonergan, S. 1998. "The role of environmental degradation in population displacement." Environmental change and security project report. Vol. 4.
Management Plan for Buxa Tiger Reserve (1999-2009) Dept. of Forests. Government of West Bengal. India.
McGregor, J. 1994. "Climate change and involuntary migration: implications for food security." Food Policy 19(2):120-132.t
Meyers, N. 1997. "Environmental refugees." Population and Environment 19(2):167-182.
Morrissey, J. 2012. " Rethinking the ' debate on environmental refugees; : from ' maximalists' to 'minimalists' to ' proponents' and ' critics'." Journal of Political Ecology, 19 36-49.
Mukherjee, A. 2009. " Conflict and coexistence in a national park." Economic and Political Weekly .Vol XLIV no. 23 pp. 52-59.
Myers, N. 1993. "Environmental refugee in a globally warmed world." Bioscience, 43(11): 752-61.
Myers, N. 2005. "Environmental refugees: an emergent security issue." 13th Economic Forum, 23-27 May, Prague.
Neuteleers, S. 2011. "Environmental refugees: a misleading notion for a genuine problem." Ethical perspectives , 18(2): 229-248.
Oliver Smith, A. 2006. "Reflections on nature, environment and society in vulnerability research." Draft of a forthcoming publication of UNU-EHS.
Pathak, N. and A. Kothari. 1998. "Sharing Benefits of Wildlife Conservation with Local communities: Legal Implications." Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 30,No. 40 , pp.2603-2610.
Renaud, F , JJ. Bogardi , O. Dan and K. Warner. 2007. "Control, Adapt or Flee: How to face environmental migration, Intersections." UNU-EHS, no 5 /2007, www: ehs.unu.edu/file . php ?id=259.
Sayer, J. and others. 2007. "Assessing environment and development outcomes in conservation landscapes." Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 2677-2694.
Scudder, T. 2005. "The future of Large Dams: dealing with social ,environmental, institutional and political costs." .London : Earthscan
Suhrke, A. 1994. "Environmental degradation and population flows." Journal of International Affairs , 47(2): 437-496.
Tiwari, PC. 2000. "Land use changes in Himalaya and their impact on the plains ecosystem: need for sustainable land use." Land Use Policy 17: 101-111.
Turton, D. 2003. "Refugees , forced resettlers and ' other forced migrants': towards a unitary study of forced migration." New Issues in Refugee research working paper 94 , United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva.
UNHCR, 2002. "A critical time for the environment." Refugees . No 127 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva.
UNHCR, 2007. Global trends: refugees , asylum seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons.
Warner, K , M. Hamza , A. Olover Smith and A. Julca. 2010. Climate change , environmental degradation and migration , Natural Hazards, 55: 689-715.
************