




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 133-140, January 2025 

INSIGHTS FROM THE FIELD  
 

De jure and De facto Land Management Approaches 
of  Forest Officials: Reflections from the Field and 
Archives 
 

Nita Shashidharan   
 
1. INTRODUCTION  

It was January 17, 2022, and I was in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve 
(STR) in Erode, Tamil Nadu, a biodiversity-rich protected area (PA) with 
interspersed forest and agricultural land. My field assistant and I waited on 
the red concrete steps of  the range office for the range forest officer (RFO) 
to arrive. The range office was a small building, painted yellow with brown 
windows and a banner displaying its name. A notice board hung on a wall 
listed the documents the public must submit to seek compensation for crop 
damage, loss of  life, and livestock casualties caused by wildlife.  

Forest administrators, especially field staff  like RFOs, play a key role in 
implementing conservation and development plans and policies; however, 
few studies have closely examined their on-the-ground work to understand 
the context and challenges (Fleischman 2016; Vasan 2002). I was interested 
in understanding the forest department’s (FD) approach to managing the 
PA’s land and ecosystem services, both on paper and in practice. The 
objective was to compare de jure (on paper) and de facto (in practice) FD 
management approaches. STR management plans (MPs) provided 
information on the former, and information on the latter came from 
interviews. 

To understand the de facto management approaches of  the FD, RFOs were 
selected for key informant interviews1 due to their knowledge and positions 

                                                      
 Doctoral Student, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), 
Bangalore, Karnataka, India 560064 and Manipal Academy of  Higher Education (MAHE), 
Manipal, Karnataka, India 576104; nita.shashidharan@atree.org  

Copyright © Shashidharan 2025. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © 
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1455  

mailto:nita.shashidharan@atree.org
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1455


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [134] 

of  power in field decision-making and staff  supervision. From mid-January 
to mid-February 2022, all ten RFOs of  STR were contacted; however, due 
to scheduling conflicts, only six interviews were conducted.2 During each 
interview, the RFO was shown the topographic map of  the range under his 
supervision.3 The map served as a visual probe, aiding the respondent’s 
memory and maintaining focus on the range (Harper 2002).4  

When these interviews were conducted, the Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) 
(TNFD n.d.) had not been released. However, the PA was declared a tiger 
reserve (TR) in 2013, so the objectives of  a TR were loosely pursued. The 
Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) Management Plan (2010–2020) 
was still in effect at the time (TNFD 2010). To understand the de jure 
management approaches, I selected these two forest MPs,5 as they reflect 
the FD’s commitments and serve as guiding principles for the field staff  to 
achieve their objectives (Gutierrez Garzon et al. 2021). The MPs and 
interviews were analysed to identify their similarities and differences. 

Here, I present insights from my analysis of  the FD’s PA land management 
approaches through MPs and practices as revealed through interviews.  

 

2. ON PAPER AND IN PRACTICE: UNDERPINNINGS OF 
THE FD LAND MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 

The Sathyamangalam WLS MP and TCP are instruments for forest 
bureaucratic practices. The WLS MP prioritizes wildlife conservation, while 
the TCP follows a tiger-centric model. Interviews with the RFOs revealed 
their ongoing efforts to adhere to the rules and regulations in the MPs for 
site-specific targets. Comparing the MPs with interview findings, I found 

                                                                                                                       
1 The key informant interview technique is a semi-structured method for 
interviewing respondents. The key informants are selected using purposive 
sampling based on criteria such as their knowledge, role in the community, and 
willingness to participate (Tremblay 1957). The interviews follow an interview 
guide on topics related to the study. 
2 Of the six, four were 1-1.5-hour interviews in English at range offices. My field 
assistant helped conduct two phone interviews with an RFO and a forester in 
Tamil, lasting 30 mins each. A forester from the same range, ranked below the 
RFO in the FD hierarchy, was interviewed to corroborate the data from these 
shorter interviews.  
3 At the time of these interviews, no female RFOs worked in STR.  
4 For phone interviews, respondents were informed about the use of the 
corresponding range map, which was used to a limited extent as a visual cue.  
5 Since the TCP was only partially in force during the interviews, this represents 
quasi-de jure management. 



[135] Shashidharan 

that geographic relationships, land politics, habitat management, and 
practitioners’ situated knowledge underpin FD land management 
approaches. I elaborate on each below. 

2.1. Management Philosophies and Geographic Relationships 

The management philosophies in both MPs follow the “landscape 
approach”, aiming to address multiple objectives of  the PA landscape. The 
landscape includes the “zone of  interaction” (DeFries, Karanth, and 
Pareeth 2010) and extends to the surrounding areas of  the PA, reflecting 
the unavoidable geographic relationships here. The TCP is the first STR 
MP to include ecosystem services and climate change in PA land 
management strategies. This shows the FD’s efforts to ensure PA mandates 
align with international agreements like the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and national priorities set by the Ministry of  Environment, Forest 
and Climate Change (ET Bureau 2014; MoEFCC 2017). However, field 
practitioners like RFOs are not always trained on these updates and are 
already dealing with existing challenges. 

The RFOs acknowledge the complexity of  land management in STR, citing 
its geographic structure, diverse terrain, and fragmented forest habitats 
interspersed with agriculture and settlements. STR spans two states 
(Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) and links to nearby PAs, further complicating 
management. Referring to the range map, a respondent noted:  

On the corner of  the Palayam beat around 700 hectares of  revenue land 
exist with forest-like characteristics. It lies on the interstate border. During 
the cultivation period, wild animals migrate to this revenue land, moving 
to the surrounding agricultural fields in the evening. Since it is a revenue 
land, we cannot create an elephant-proof  trench without permission from 
the district collector. 

2.2. Land Politics  

The complex geographic relationships lead to land politics. The FD must 
seek permission from the revenue department to use revenue land, 
illustrating differing land control management even among state agencies in 
and around STR. Declaring the PA a TR gave the land an identity of  
enhanced protection. The impact of  this identity shift is evident in the 
TCP’s planning structure and the RFOs’ efforts to protect the PA. This TR 
identity adds to the land’s existing identities for local people (e.g., land 
ownership, tenure regimes, sense of  belonging), creating potential for 
conflict and coexistence in PA management.  
 
 
 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [136] 

Figure 1: The Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and Its Surrounding Landscape6 

Source: The author has created this map using the map data of  the STR ranges 
acquired from the Tamil Nadu Forest Department and the OpenStreetMap in 
QGIS. 

 
As a TR, PA land use and management are subject to National Tiger 
Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines, a statutory body under the 
MoEFCC. The TCP mentions this; however, the WLS MPs do not have 
such requirements, WLS being a less stringently monitored management 
regime. The MPs and interviews highlighted prioritizing monitoring land 
conversion (e.g., forest to agricultural land use) and land modifications 
within existing land cover (e.g., changes within grassland composition due 
to fires). Interviews also showed that various land uses are monitored, 
regulated, and prohibited to minimize violations of  land use regulations. 
This requires daily negotiations with locals, including indigenous people and 
others from various social strata. The RFOs emphasized facing challenges 
in management due to legal and illegal mining near PA borders, changing 
land leases, real estate purchases around STR, and the need to constantly 

                                                      
6 This map shows how STR (in centre) connects to the nearby PAs. It also 
highlights agricultural enclaves (sites visible outside the ranges) within STR. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


[137] Shashidharan 

monitor human–wildlife conflict zones near forest–agricultural lands, dams, 
and roadways.  

Respondents shared concerns about land use management in STR and the 
imposed regulations. One respondent remarked:  

The Hill Area Conservation Authority rules are applicable here. Also, the 
eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) notification, 2019, is implemented extending up 
to 1 km around STR. Without the NTCA’s permission, commercial 
activities aren’t allowed inside the ESZ. But there are still private, small 
resorts running (illegally) in the name of  farmhouses. We are taking 
measures to control this.  

Another respondent mentioned a long-standing unresolved land conflict 
near the Bhavanisagar dam: 

There are encroachments near the Bhavanisagar dam area for which local 
communities there have been given eviction notices. They replied that 
they were landless and that it was the government who gave them land on 
lease before the 1980s. These land leases were terminated after the Forest 
Conservation Act, 1980, came into effect, but these people are unwilling 
to leave.  

During a previous field visit to the dam catchment area with a forest guard, 
local communities expressed grievances about the plight caused by the FD. 
This reflects that the state acts as both a “giver” and “taker” (Chakravorty 
2013), highlighting the complexity of  land management beyond the FD. 

2.3. Habitat Management and Practitioner’s Situated Knowledge 

Land modifications due to forest fires and invasive species, e.g., Lantana sp. 
and Prosopis sp., are key concerns addressed in habitat management 
strategies in STR. Fire management by RFOs focuses on prevention, 
control, and adherence to the MP’s “standard operating procedures” to 
prevent habitat loss for wildlife. Local residents are engaged as 
supplementary workers in fire control efforts. Data collected by the FD 
field staff  on recent and past fire incidents are studied by the FD to identify 
fire-prone locations within the PA. This data acts as material records—
proof  of  the functioning of  bureaucratic machinery documented in paper 
or digitally. It informs the RFO’s knowledge of  fire occurrences within his 
range and influences his habitat management plan. 

The spread of  invasive species in Indian PAs threatens biodiversity by 
competing with and suppressing native vegetation (Hiremath and Sundaram 
2013). This concern applies to STR, as reflected in both MPs and 
interviews. According to the TCP, approximately 15,000 ha and 7,000 ha of  
forest cover are now dominated by Prosopis sp. and Lantana sp., respectively, 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [138] 

along with three other prominent invasives: Parthenium sp., Eupatorium sp., 
and Senna sp. The MPs aim to recover “natural vegetation” by removing 
invasives. The RFOs are cautious about uprooting them. A respondent 
notes, “More grasses and native species like Butea, Pongam, and Terminalia 
are emerging in a Prosopis plot cleared last year. Previously, gaurs and 
elephants couldn’t cross this area, but now, it is used as a resting place by 
herbivores.” He provided reasons for not proposing invasive plant removal 
from another site: “In case of  invasive sites near Kongarpalayam, 
Vilankombai, the extensive growth of  Prosopis is on the fringes. If  we clear 
that, people can easily enter the forest.” Thus, the practitioner’s situated 
knowledge is used in decision-making for invasive species management.7 

 

3. REFLECTIONS 

I found substantial conformity between de jure and de facto FD land 
management practices but also witnessed the complexity and challenges of  
on-ground implementation. The field officials’ everyday practices and 
challenges indicated the subtle differences between paper and practice. 
They provided a glimpse into how de jure plans and the accompanying 
regulations shape land use and management in a PA. Both MPs exhibit 
numerous similarities—the key distinction being the proposed objectives 
and extent of  protection measures. The RFOs’ responses reflect their role 
as managers who use legal tools to enforce order and achieve targets while 
navigating differences in land control and potential conflicts. Geographic 
relationships and habitat management represent the space where land 
management activities occur. These activities are influenced by 
practitioners’ situated knowledge, whose individual agency, in turn, affects 
decision-making. Land is a state subject with aspects like land acquisition on 
the concurrent list, so it is closely linked to land politics in STR. This 
attempt highlights these crucial interlinkages, which are often overlooked by 
conservation researchers and practitioners. It urges current and future 
conservationists not to discount the agency of  actors on the ground in 
shaping land management in PAs. 

 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This paper partially fulfils my thesis 
publication requirements at the Manipal Academy of  Higher Education. I 

                                                      
7 Tamil Nadu, where this PA is located, is the only Indian state with a separate 
policy addressing invasive plant species—the “Tamil Nadu Policy on Invasive 
Plants and Ecological Restoration”—highlighting their importance in state forest 
management. 



[139] Shashidharan 

thank Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Devyani Singh, Rinan Shah, the anonymous 
reviewer, Harini Nagendra, the respondents, and my field assistant, Mythily 
C., for their support.  

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of  ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of  this research. Institutional Review Board approval 
number: IRB/ACA/0007/NS/02/2019. 

Data Availability statement: The data used to support this research 
cannot be shared openly to protect the privacy of  study participants and is 
stated in the paper. 

Conflict of  Interest Statement: No potential conflict of  interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

Chakravorty, Sanjoy. 2013. The Price of  Land: Acquisition, Conflict, Consequence, 1st ed. 
New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198089544.001.0001  

DeFries, Ruth, Krithi K. Karanth, and Sajid Pareeth. 2010. “Interactions between 
Protected Areas and Their Surroundings in Human-Dominated Tropical 
Landscapes.” Biological Conservation 143 (12): 2870-80. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010  

ET Bureau. 2014. “Ministry of  Environment and Forests Undergoes a 
Nomenclature Change: Government Serious to Tackle Climate Change.” Economic 
Times, May 28, 2014. 
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ministry-of-
environment-and-forests-undergoes-a-nomenclature-change-government-serious-
to-tackle-climate-change/articleshow/35651292.cms?from=mdr  

Fleischman, Forrest. 2016. “Understanding India's Forest Bureaucracy: A Review.” 
Regional Environmental Change 16 (2016): 153-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-
015-0844-8  

Gutierrez Garzon, Alba Rocio, Pete Bettinger, Jesse Abrams, Jacek P. Siry, and Bin 
Mei. 2022. “Forest Sustainability in State Forest Management Plans: A Content 
Analysis.” Journal of  Sustainable Forestry 41 (1): 92-113. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2021.1884575  

Harper, Douglas. 2002. “Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo Elicitation.” 
Visual Studies 17 (1): 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345  

Hiremath, Ankila, and Bharath Sundaram. 2013. “Invasive Plant Species in Indian 
Protected Areas: Conserving Biodiversity in Cultural Landscapes.” In Plant Invasions 
in Protected Areas: Patterns, Problems and Challenges, edited by Llewellyn Foxcroft, Petr 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198089544.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ministry-of-environment-and-forests-undergoes-a-nomenclature-change-government-serious-to-tackle-climate-change/articleshow/35651292.cms?from=mdr
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ministry-of-environment-and-forests-undergoes-a-nomenclature-change-government-serious-to-tackle-climate-change/articleshow/35651292.cms?from=mdr
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ministry-of-environment-and-forests-undergoes-a-nomenclature-change-government-serious-to-tackle-climate-change/articleshow/35651292.cms?from=mdr
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0844-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0844-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2021.1884575
https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [140] 

Pyšek, David Richardson, and Piero Genovesi. Vol. 7. Dordrecht: Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7750-7  

MoEFCC. 2017. Voluntary Peer-Review under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Case 
Study 2: India. New Delhi: Ministry of  Environment, Forest and Climate Change. 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/in-vpr-en.pdf.  

OpenStreetMap. 2024. Map data licensed under the Open Data Commons Open 
Database License. https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright  

TNFD. n.d. Tiger Conservation Plan, Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve. Erode, Tamil Nadu: 
Tamil Nadu Forest Department. https://www.forests.tn.gov.in/wildlife-
management-plan  

___. 2010. Management Plan for Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary (2010-2020). Erode, 
Tamil Nadu: Tamil Nadu Forest Department. 
https://www.academia.edu/8273064/TAMILNADU_FOREST_DEPARTMENT
_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FOR_SATHYAMANGALAM_WILDLIFE_SANCT
UARY_2010_TO_2020_  

Tremblay, Marc-Adélard. 1957. “The Key Informant Technique: A 
Nonethnographic Application.” American Anthropologist 59 (4): 688-701. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1957.59.4.02a00100  

Vasan, Sudha. 2002. “Ethnography of  the Forest Guard: Contrasting Discourses, 
Conflicting Roles and Policy Implementation.” Economic and Political Weekly 37 (40): 
4125–33. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7750-7
https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/in-vpr-en.pdf
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
https://www.forests.tn.gov.in/wildlife-management-plan
https://www.forests.tn.gov.in/wildlife-management-plan
https://www.academia.edu/8273064/TAMILNADU_FOREST_DEPARTMENT_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FOR_SATHYAMANGALAM_WILDLIFE_SANCTUARY_2010_TO_2020_
https://www.academia.edu/8273064/TAMILNADU_FOREST_DEPARTMENT_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FOR_SATHYAMANGALAM_WILDLIFE_SANCTUARY_2010_TO_2020_
https://www.academia.edu/8273064/TAMILNADU_FOREST_DEPARTMENT_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FOR_SATHYAMANGALAM_WILDLIFE_SANCTUARY_2010_TO_2020_
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1957.59.4.02a00100

