







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 5 (1): 195-221 January 2022 

RESEARCH PAPER 
 

Rangeland Conservation, Pastoralist Displacement, 
and Long-term Implications of a Grazing Ban in the 
Indian Himalaya 

Rashmi Singh*, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia**, Tshering Uden Bhutia***, Suresh 
Babu**** 

Abstract: Conservation-induced displacement has been one of the major critiques 
of protected area management across South Asia. While there has been a steady 
increase in research on physical displacement, studies on loss of mobility remain 
limited. In 1998, a grazing ban was implemented in the state of Sikkim in the 
Eastern Himalayan region of India. Livestock herding in protected areas was 
restricted, and pastoral evictions were carried out across the state between 2000–
2002. Fifteen years after the ban, we conducted this study to understand the long-
term implications of the prohibition on grazing as well as that of the pastoral 
evictions in and around Khangchendzonga National Park (KNP). To do so, we 
assess eviction processes, document pastoral responses, and explore the complex 
social and perceived ecological outcomes of the grazing ban. Our study shows that 
pastoral evictions result in the further impoverishment of weaker sections of the 
pastoral community while powerful pastoralists appropriate benefits from 
conservation policies. Additionally, evictions do not necessarily aid in “biodiversity 
conservation”; instead, they give rise to social conflicts within the local community 
and lead to the emergence of new conservation challenges. Ex-herders’ responses 
to the displacement included passive acceptance, resistance and contestation, and 
negotiation using power and social networks. These responses were distinctly 
correlated with the herder’s wealth class. We conclude that instead of pastoral 
displacement, a successful conservation plan could be co-opting local knowledge 
and local institutions in identifying ways of cultural and conservation co-existence 
in the pastoral landscape of South Asia, paying closer attention to questions of 
equality and sustainability. 

 
*School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi. rashmi89singh@gmail.com 

**Khangchendzonga Conservation Committee, West Sikkim. kinzong@gmail.com  
***Khangchendzonga Conservation Committee, West Sikkim. uden.sikkim07@gmail.com   

****School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi. suresh@aud.ac.in  

Copyright © Singh, Bhutia, Bhutia and Babu 2022. 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.v5i1.335  

mailto:rashmi89singh@gmail.com
mailto:kinzong@gmail.com
mailto:uden.sikkim07@gmail.com
mailto:suresh@aud.ac.in
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i1.335


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [196] 

 

Keywords: Pastoral Communities, Conservation induced Displacement, Protected 
Areas, Biodiversity Conservation, Khangchendzonga National Park, Himalaya 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Conservation-induced displacement and eviction of indigenous 
communities from protected areas have been the understory of biodiversity 
conservation and protected area management practices in South Asia and 
Africa (Agrawal and Redford 2009; Brockington and Igoe 2006; Kabra 
2018). Despite the global recognition of community conservation 
approaches and the development of forest rights legislations for indigenous 
communities (Convention of Biological Diversity, COP7, IUCN), they 
continue to face state-induced evictions. Globally, more than 10 million 
people have been displaced in the name of conservation (Agrawal and 
Redford 2009). In India alone, close to 6,00,000 have been displaced over 
the last two decades (Fanari 2019). These numbers are an understatement at 
best, given that the nomadic pastoral life is difficult to account for in such 
specific time- and place-bound surveys.  

There is an emerging recognition of the role of pastoralists in managing and 
restoring rangelands, combatting climate change, and fulfilling sustainable 
food goals.† Ecologists continue to explore the role of livestock grazing in 
rangeland management (Briske, Fuhlendorf, and Smeins 2003; Ellis and 
Swift 1988; Retzer 2006; Vetter 2005), and recent studies have increasingly 
shown a positive correlation between traditional pastoralism and rangeland 
health (Ingty 2021; Kohli et al. 2021; Pozo et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020). 
However, colonial legacies of conservation and the spectre of “overgrazing” 
in the political narratives of pastoral landscapes have led to the curtailing of 
pastoralists’ access to their pastures, sedentarization, and even the removal 
of pastoral communities from their traditional pastures across Africa, Asia, 
Inner Mongolia, and China for the sake of “biodiversity conservation” 
(Behnke and Scoones 1992; Caravani 2019; Gonin and Gautier 2015; 
Mortimore 1998; Schmidt and Pearson 2016; Singh et al. 2021; Weber and 
Horst 2011; Weldemichel 2020; Yeh 2005; Zhizhong and Wen 2008). 
Scholarly engagements have showcased a wide range of social, cultural, and 

 
† There is an emerging recognition of the role of pastoralists in managing and restoring 
rangelands, which cover over 40% of the terrestrial area, in combating climate change and 
fulfilling global food sustainability goals. Global agencies like Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Wide 
Fund for Nature (WWF), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are all 
independently as well as collaboratively supporting the call for the International Year for 
Rangeland and Pastoralism (IYRP 2026). 

 



[197] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

ecological outcomes of such state-led political interventions in the pastoral 
landscapes (Conte and Tilt 2014; Ichinkhorloo and Yeh 2016; Li et al. 2013). 
These results include violation of pastoral rights through unlawful 
encroachments of pastures by the state and private actors (Mwaikusa 1993); 
the transformation of pastoral communities to agriculture (Schmidt and 
Pearson 2016); and loss of access to pastures and pastoral livelihoods 
through state violence and territorialization (Caravani 2019; Gonin and 
Gautier 2015; Korf, Hagmann, and Emmenegger 2015; Saberwal 1996; 
Weldemichel 2020; Yeh 2005). 

India has a rich diversity of pastoralists—from the goat herders of Jammu 
and Kashmir, i.e., the Bakarwals and Gaddis, the world-renowned Pashmina 
goat herders of Ladakh, the yak herders of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, 
to the duck-herding nomads of Tamil Nadu. Pastoralists form over 98% of 
the nomadic population of India, which comprises 7% of the total 
population of the country. These pastoral communities have critical 
cultural, social, ecological, and economic importance. Still, given the 
common perception that large inviolate spaces need to be maintained for 
biodiversity conservation, pastoralists in India continue to face 
conservation-induced evictions and movement restrictions. While there is a 
scarcity of literature on the ecological influence of traditional herding, the 
scientific belief that there is a negative relation between pastoral land use 
and biodiversity conservation has resulted in numerous pastoral evictions in 
India. Some of these are the Gujjar pastoralists’ eviction from Sariska Tiger 
Reserve, Rajasthan (Shahabuddin, Kumar, and Shrivastava 2007), Van 
Gujjars from Rajaji National Park in Uttarakhand (Muhammed 2020) and 
Jammu and Kashmir (Gooch 2009), the removal of water buffalo herders 
from Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan (Lewis 2003), and many more.  

This study aims to unpack the complex social and ecological implications of 
one of such grazing ban and eviction of pastoralists from protected areas. 
In addition, we seek to answer the question—do all pastoralists pay for 
“biodiversity conservation”? We argue that pastoral evictions result in the 
further impoverishment of weaker sections of the pastoral community 
while elite and powerful pastoralists appropriate the benefits of these 
conservation policies by gaining exclusive access to rangelands. Due to the 
lack of state planning for alternative livelihoods and compensation, most 
ex-herders continue to face long-term challenges even after opting for 
alternatives livelihoods after being evicted. Furthermore, the unplanned 
elimination of herders may result in the emergence of an entirely new set of 
conservation challenges in the long term.  

We present our argument based on our study of pastoral displacement in 
KNP, which was followed by the grazing ban imposed in 1998 to preserve 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [198] 

 

the biodiversity of the state of Sikkim, situated in the Eastern Indian 
Himalayan region. To do so, we analyze the eviction processes used, 
document pastoral responses, and explore the long-term repercussions for 
the pastoralists of KNP, along with the implications for the conservation of 
the park. Protected areas across Sikkim witnessed massive dispossession of 
pastoralists between 2000 to 2002. Evictions in KNP included two sets of 
people: one, the residents of Tshoka village (10 households), which was 
situated inside the park; second, the pastoralists that herded sheep, cattle, 
dzo, and yak inside the park but had their permanent houses on the 
periphery of the park. This article predominantly focuses on the second set 
of people—the pastoralists who constituted more than 90% of the 
displaced population and who lost their mobility and access to the park, 
which was critical for their livelihoods.  

2. CONSERVATION-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT IN 
SOUTH ASIA 

The central assumption of the exclusionary model of conservation is that 
local livelihoods are at variance with conservation goals (Beinart and Coates 
1995; Salafky and Wollenberg 2000). The exclusionary conservation model, 
based on fines and fences, has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction due to 
the inherent conflict between the motives of biodiversity conservation and 
poverty reduction in third-world countries (Brockington 2004; Colchester 
2004). Critiques of conservation displacement argue that a human-free 
conservation model is unrealistic and unjust, where the impoverished are 
forced to abandon their native lands to fulfil the need for conservation 
(Beinart and Coates 1995; Madhusudan and Raman 2003; Saberwal, 
Rangarajan, and Kothari 2001). It has been further argued that the benefits 
of conservation are regional, national, and global and that its costs are 
borne primarily by the already marginalized local poor (Balmford and 
Whitten 2003; Kabra 2018). There are two kinds of conservation-induced 
displacement (CD): The first involves the physical displacement of forest-
dwellers and people from their ancestral homes, while the second results in 
pastoralists’ loss of access to livelihoods and mobilities inside protected 
areas (Cernea 2005). The ramifications of physical displacement manifest in 
the form of several social, economic, and cultural impacts on the displaced 
communities, including alienation from natural resources critical for 
livelihood security, direct loss of livelihood, income insecurity, increased 
poverty, and food insecurity (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltua 2006; West, Igoe, 
and Brockington 2006). CDs and forceful evictions carried out in South 
Asia have been critiqued widely, especially when the ecological benefits and 
effectiveness of protecting certain areas was much lower than anticipated 
(Kabra 2018). In India, for instance, one of the first detailed studies to 



[199] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

document the social implications of CD was conducted by Kabra (2009) on 
Saharia tribe members, who were displaced from Kuno Sanctuary, Madhya 
Pradesh. The study showed inverse impacts on income, a livelihood shift 
from a self-sufficient forest-dependent economy to a wage-based market, 
loss of food security, and a heightened vulnerability to diseases. In another 
study by Lam and Paul (2014) in Rana Tharus, Nepal, it was established that 
the compensation provided to displaced communities did not equate to an 
adequate replacement for their loss of livelihood. Displacement from the 
park resulted in the loss of social capital, which implied a further reduction 
in access to job opportunities.  

While there has been a steady increase in empirical studies from South Asia 
documenting the processes and impacts of conservation displacement 
(West, Igoe, and Brockington 2006), a recent review by Kabra (2018, 117–
140) highlights that the “literature remains minuscule compared to the 
estimated magnitude of impacts of PA on some of the most remote and 
vulnerable populations of the global South.” It is important to note that out 
of the two types of displacement, the second kind has remained invisible in 
the published literature. This study addresses the call for research on the 
second kind of CD, where displacement may not involve physical removal 
but results in loss of livelihoods and mobility, which becomes critical in the 
case of pastoral communities. We address this lacuna of pastoral 
displacement studies in South Asia and contribute through a case study 
conducted in the Eastern Himalayas. Given that all prior research on the 
impacts of the grazing ban was conducted either by state actors or their 
collaborators (Bhagwat, Diwan, and Venkataramani 2012; Tambe, Bhutia, 
and Arrawatia 2012), and the need for an independent assessment of the 
entire episode of the grazing ban and its long-term implications for the 
evicted pastoralists, this study becomes extremely crucial. 

3. STUDY SITE  

The study was conducted in four village clusters—Yuksom, Darap, Karzi, 
and Uttarey in West Sikkim—situated at the periphery of KNP. Sikkim 
covers an area of 7,096 km², which is only 0.2% of the total geographical 
area of India; however, it is an environmentally critical region, one among 
34 global biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000). In terms of land area, 
following forests (265.21 thousand ha) and barren land, including rocky and 
snow-covered areas (209.01 thousand ha), permanent pasture and grazing 
land, including cultivable wasteland (102.40 thousand ha), account for the 
third-largest largest portion of land cover, at 14% of the state’s total area. 
These lands traditionally served as pastures for rearing livestock. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [200] 

 

Agriculture and tourism are the main livelihoods of the inhabitants of 
Sikkim. Most of the local population, close to 80%, is dependent on 
agriculture. Local farmers traditionally cultivated rice, wheat, maize, finger 
millet, barley, pulses, tuber crop, spices, fruits, vegetables, and ornamental 
plants. However, with the increase in population and fragmentation of 
landholdings over generations, the per capita holding has reduced; farmers 
have moved towards cultivating cash crops like large cardamom (Amomum 
subulatum), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), and 
mandarin oranges (Citrus reticulata).  

The study design included a landscape-based approach and therefore 
focused on KNP; the selected clusters were identified to be the most 
influenced by the grazing ban and pastoral evictions. The park covers an 
area of 1,784 km². KNP hosts a wide range of ecosystems, from sub-
tropical to alpine, along with numerous lakes and peaks of religious 
importance to Sikkim’s Buddhist and Hindu communities. The park is also 
home to a unique assortment of mammals, including the clouded leopard 
(Neofelis nebulosa), Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus chanco), Asiatic wild dog (Cuon 
alpinus), Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), Alpine musk deer (Moschus 
chrysogaster), Himalayan marmot (Marmota himalayana), blue sheep (Pseudois 
nayaur), argali (Ovis ammon hodgsoni), Himalayan ibex (Capra sibirica), and the 
charismatic snow leopard (Panthera uncia) (Sathyakumar et al. 2011). It 
harbours extraordinary floral diversity with 18 forest types (Champion and 
Seth 1968) and 1,580 species of vascular plants, comprising 106 
pteridophytes, 11 gymnosperms, and 1,463 species of angiosperms (Maity 
and Maiti 2007). Holding critical ecological, religious, and cultural 
importance, KNP has been designated a UNESCO World Heritage site. 

West Sikkim has a culturally diverse human community living in and around 
KNP. Historically, Gurungs and Mangers were shepherds, the Bhutia were 
traders and yak herders, Limbu were hunter-gatherers and shifting 
cultivators, the Chettris and Bahuns were agro-pastoralists, and the Tibetan 
Dokpas were nomadic yak herders (Tambe and Rawat 2009). Pastoral 
practices, before the implementation of the grazing ban, were undertaken 
by only 10–15% of the total households in the villages of West Sikkim.  

Traditional livestock herding followed a pattern of seasonal resource use. 
Herders kept their yak and sheep in the high-altitude alpine regions of KNP 
in the summers. During winters, i.e., November to March, they were 
brought back to temperate and sub-temperate pastures near the villages. 
Yuksom village of West Sikkim, one of the four sites of the study, is 
renowned among the international trekking community for being the 
starting point of the Goechala trek to the base of Mount Khanchendzonga. 
Pack animals used in the tourism sector in the region include horses and 



[201] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

dzo. The locals involved in tourism find employment as porters, pack 
animal operators, tour guides, and vehicle drivers and run establishments 
like homestays and hotels. Over the last two decades, post-ban, households 
in the study area have become increasingly involved in the hotel and 
restaurant businesses catering to growing tourism in the region. 

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area: Khangchendzonga National Park, Buffer 
Zones, and the Four Village Clusters 

 

Source: Author 

4. METHODS 

Primary data collection was done between October 2017 and November 
2019. Four village clusters in the study site were identified during the pilot 
survey conducted in April 2017. We used mixed methods for this study: 
semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and key informant 
interviews.  

The lead author compiled a list of ex-herders with the help of village elders 
and members of the Eco-Development Committee, Joint Forest 
Management Committee, and Khangchendzonga Conservation Committee 
(the second and third author). As a follow-up, a semi-structured 
questionnaire was developed to understand the implementation of the ban, 
the responses of the herders, and their long-term coping strategies post-



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [202] 

 

eviction. We conducted 40 semi-structured household interviews, primarily 
with household heads. Since the ex-herders were mostly males who spent a 
lot of time alone inside the park, most of the interviews were conducted 
with males (n = 32). However, in cases where females had lived inside the 
park or had experienced eviction, they were interviewed as well (n = 4). In 
some cases, where the ex-herders were either too elderly or had died, 
interviews were conducted with their family members (n = 4). 

During these interviews, snowball sampling was employed to maximize the 
sampling efforts and ensure the inclusion and participation of ex-herders 
from all wealth classes and animal-rearing communities, i.e., sheep, dzo, 
cattle, and yak herders. Categorization by wealth class was carried out post-
fieldwork, based on the number of animals owned, landholding size, and 
the type of house respondents owned. During the field surveys, we noticed 
that some of the households were still agitated about the state-led 
displacement and refused to engage in conversation about it.  

Respondents were briefed about the research, and consent was taken before 
the interviews. The interviews were scheduled based on the time availability 
of the respondents. The lead author had made the ancillary effort of 
learning the locally spoken language, Nepali. A research assistant was also 
employed from the study area to assist with translation and avoid any 
confusion or uncertainty. Most of the interviews were conducted in Nepali 
and were later translated to English. Transcripts were saved with 
pseudonyms to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the 
respondents. After the interviews, three focus group discussions and seven 
key informant interviews were conducted for data triangulation as well as to 
sort out any queries that had risen during the semi-structured interviews. 

5. RESULTS 

5.1 Grazing Ban and Pastoralist Evictions 

The grazing ban was implemented based on the assumption that 
“overgrazing” led to the degradation of forests due to grazing practices, 
illegal wildlife poaching, medicinal plant extraction, and tree felling by the 
herders. According to the respondents, no study was conducted before the 
grazing ban was implemented to understand the impact of grazing or 
identify the individuals who were involved in illegal practices. At the time of 
the ban, there were close to 103 herders who had a little over 200 goaths or 
temporary shelters inside the park. Herders of yak, sheep, dzo, and cattle 
used to live for six to nine months inside the park. Some of the herders also 
had multiple herds of buffalo, sheep, dzo, and yak that they reared with the 
help of hired assistants/caretakers.  



[203] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Table 1: Summary of Responses Regarding the Implementation of the Pastoralist 
Displacement 

Source: Author’s compilation, 2017-2019 

Most respondents (75%) mentioned that they had either learned of the ban 
at the time of eviction or from fellow-villagers just before evictions. 
However, the remaining 25%, primarily a few herders from the Yuksom 
and Uttarey clusters, mentioned that they had received multiple notices 
from forest guards between 1999 and 2001. The ex-herders of the Yuksom 
cluster also mentioned that a sensitization drive was conducted by forest 
officials and conservation agencies to make the herders aware of the role of 
biodiversity conservation and the impacts of grazing. These respondents 
attributed the sensitization drive to the pro-people approach of the forest 
official who conducted the eviction drive in Yuksom cluster. They also 
believed that the conservation NGO, Khangchendzonga Conservation 
Committee, was perhaps the reason why the eviction drive at Yuksom 
included sensitization programmes. In the rest of the responses, evictions 
were imposed by force, warnings, and threats. 

The ex-herders reported that the state did not plan any rehabilitation or 
alternative income sources for them and neither were they involved in the 

planning stage of the ban. Only two herders received a sum of ₹10,000 for 
abandoning their pastoral practices. All of the ex-herders were highly 
aggrieved by the methods adopted by the government in implementing the 
grazing ban and pastoral evictions, which involved the use of force. 

 

 

Responses Associated with the Grazing Ban 
Implementation 

Percentage of 
Respondents 

Information attained through fellow 
villagers/panchayat 

25.0 

Received no prior notice 37.5 

Received notice personally  37.5 

Believed policy implementation methods were 
inappropriate 

100.0 

Believed there was no participation in the planning 
process 

100.0 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [204] 

 

5.2 Herders’ Responses to the Ban and Displacement  

Out of the 40 ex-herders we interviewed, most had simply abandoned their 
grazing practices after learning of the ban, while the rest had attempted to 
resist it. Those with the smallest herds (low-class) left their goaths 
(temporary sheds of herders inside the park) and sold their animals within a 
year of the ban being implemented at less than half of their actual value, 
mostly to herders in Nepal. The greatest loss was borne by this set of 
herders; due to their fear of the law and lack of capital, they desisted from 
getting involved in legal battles. The second category of herders (middle-
class) physically opposed eviction and supported the bigger, more 
influential herders in filing a legal case against the grazing ban. The herders 
in the third category used their social capital to deal with the ban, and three 
out of six of these herders continued herding inside the park.  

Ex-herders’ responses to the grazing ban can be grouped into three 
categories: 1) passive acceptance of the ban, 2) physical and legal resistance 
to the ban, and 3) getting by with the use of social networks and power.  

Ex-herders with the smallest herds (the low wealth class) (n = 18) were the 
first to abandon their pastoral practices out of fear of law enforcement. 
These herders abandoned their animals or sold them in the villages of 
Sikkim and Nepal within a year of the news of the ban. These herders 
ended up facing the greatest monetary loss. After quitting their pastoral 
practices, four of these herders joined the forest department in enforcing 
the eviction drive, which resulted in long-term social conflicts, since the 
evicted felt cheated by their own community members. The herders who 
had helped with the evictions continue to face social exclusion on a day-to-
day basis in their villages.  

Most of respondents were not even aware of the reasoning behind the ban; 
during interviews, they used the term “jungle band” for the ban, meaning that 
the forests were closed to them. As mentioned by one of the respondents: 

I do not know why the forest closed, but this kanoon (law) should not 
have come. We, the herders, did not have any other source of 
income besides rearing animals. After the jungle closed, I brought my 
animals back, but they became weak within a few days due to lack of 
good fodder that they used to get inside the jungle. We were not 
aware of the law, so we simply sold our animals. There were some 
active people who kept their animals for some time in the remote 
regions and sold them later at relatively better prices. 

Herders from the middle wealth class resisted the ban. Some of them even 
got involved in a physical tussle with forest guards at the time of eviction. 



[205] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

The ex-herders from the middle and high wealth classes were politically 
active and initiated meetings with the village panchayat soon after learning 
of the ban. They did not stop herding for almost a year but were forced to 
do so when the forest department began planting trees in and around the 
protected areas. Fences restricted access to the forests, and eventually the 
middle-class herders—who were mostly cattle herders—stopped rearing 
animals. Most of these ex-herders joined forces with the bigger, more 
powerful herders and filed a case against the grazing ban. These herders 
continually contested the ban and had confrontations with members of the 
forest department and the state during the legal battle. As stated by one of 
the respondents: 

I had gone to Geyzing, and we had filed a case there with others. 
There were other people with me who were also against the grazing 
ban, from Uttarey and Nambu. They (forest guards) said that the 
herders were hunting wildlife; if that is true, they should have looked 
for the culprits. We tried to resist a lot for almost a year, but they 
pushed us out eventually. 

Although herders from the middle wealth rank contributed monetarily and 
in communal strength toward filing the case, the individuals from the high 
wealth category became the face of the legal battle. As noted in one of the 
responses:  

We all filed a case on behalf of the village herding community—all 
sheep, cow, and yak herders together. The case got filed almost the 
same year in the district court of Geyzing and then in the Gangtok 
High Court. Many of the herders paid for the case, but a few 
influential ones became the face of the resistance and our 
representatives. There were one or two hearings that happened in 
Gangtok, but we lost the case eventually. Who could fight with the 
government? 

The third set of ex-herders, the high wealth class, were the most influential 
and affluent (n = 6). Two of these herders had multiple goaths of yak, cattle, 
and sheep, and four had large yak herds only. These herders used different 
methods to cope with the ban and evictions. For example, one of the yak 
herders transferred his herd to the pastures of neighbouring Nepal during 
the eviction drive. He used his social network to stay in Nepal for close to 
six months. Another moved into the higher reaches of KNP, and using his 
political connections led the legal case for almost a year. He never stopped 
yak rearing even after the case was lost. Two other yak herders left their 
animals in the park for a few months and resumed rearing them once the 
eviction drives had ended. It was relatively easier for the four yak herders to 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [206] 

 

deal with the ban, since yaks do not require daily attention like sheep and 
cattle. The other two who had multiple goaths of cattle and sheep, however, 
sold their animals, including one herder who traded his buffaloes for metal 
utensils from the blacksmith. The three yak herds have now doubled in 
number, and at present, there are six herds of yak in KNP. However, during 
the interviews, the owners of these herds refused to accept that the yaks 
inside the park belonged to them. 

Table 2: Summary of Responses and Explaining Factors for the Ex-herders in 
Different Wealth Classes 

Wealth Class Low Middle High 

No. of ex-herders 18 16 6 

Responses to ban Passive acceptance Resistance and 
retaliation (Both 
physical and 
through legal 
channels) 

Did not accept the 
law 

Animal-rearing 
practices 

Stopped herding 
and sold their 
herds within a year 
of the ban at less 
than half of theit 
value 

Resisted for three 
years (1999–2002) 
and sold animals 
at relatively better 
prices 

 

Never stopped 
animal rearing and 
continued herding 
inside the park 

Explaining factors Lack of 
knowledge, power, 
and money to file 
a complaint or 
resist 

Had social 
networks and 
financial capital to 
fight a case; 
formed alliances 
with elite and 
powerful herders 

Used cross-border 
social networks in 
Nepal and 
powerful political 
connections 

Source: Author’s compilation, 2017–2019 

By the end of the physical evictions and political tussle, three powerful 
herders continued to rear their yaks and dzo inside KNP. Given the remote 
geography and limited manpower available, the forest department could not 
remove these herders. The number of yaks and their herds have in fact 
doubled in number from the time of ban. Respondents also attributed their 
continued grazing to their connections with regional politicians. In essence, 
the conservation initiative eventually resulted in big herders gaining 
exclusive access to pastures, whereas the low and middle wealth class 
struggled and bore the cost of “biodiversity conservation”. In the next 



[207] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

section, I present the livelihood changes and associated challenges that 
these two sets of herders face. 

5.3 From Pastoralists to Farmers: Livelihood Change and Associated 
Challenges 

Ex-herders opted for a variety of livelihoods including cardamom 
cultivation and vegetable farming, rearing stall-fed animals, i.e., cattle and 
sheep, working as wage labourers under the Mahatma Gandhi National 
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), running shops, and 
raising pack animals for trekking groups (Fig. 2). However, the majority of 
the ex-herders had no recourse but to rely on agricultural land. The ban 
resulted in the transformation of pastoralists into farmers, which 
consequently led to a drastic change in local agriculture, from self-sufficient 
traditional cropping of maize to market-based cash cropping of large 
cardamom and vegetable cultivation. Traditional agricultural practices in the 
region involved the cultivation of a wide variety of local crops including 
mustard, buckwheat barley, soybean, corn, maize, and millets depending on 
the household’s landholding. However, when the ex-herders started 
farming, it was primarily to generate an income, and so they mostly planted 
cash crops, i.e., vegetables, maize, and cardamom depending upon the 
climatic conditions around their portions of land.  

Figure 2: Current Livelihood Profile of the Ex-herders Interviewed (n = 40) 

 

Source: Author’s analysis, 2017–2019 

Figure 2 shows that most of the ex-herders are involved in agriculture 
(55%), followed by tourism-associated livelihoods (20%), pastoral herding 
(12.5%), and other livelihoods (12.5%) such as driving private cars, running 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [208] 

 

shops, and working as labourers. Out of our total sample of ex-herders (n = 
40), the majority (n = 22) are currently dependent on agriculture 
(predominantly cardamom) and dairy (selling the milk of stall-fed cows) and 
about 20% (n = 8) are associated with tourism-related livelihoods, e.g., 
rearing pack animals or working as cooks and porters. Five of the ex-
herders are rearing livestock inside the park, out of which three are yak 
herders that continued to herd, one is a sheep herder who was evicted but 
started sheep herding again after obtaining the required permits from the 
forest department, and one ex-yak herder who had sold his yaks but is 
currently a caretaker for a yak herder in North Sikkim.  

Table 3: Livelihood Profile and Income of the Ex-herders After Displacement 

Source: Author’s compilation, 2017–2019 

The respondents mentioned that their income from pastoral practices 
would have been at least double of what they are earning now, even after 
combining multiple alternative livelihoods. The ex-cattle herders said that 
they used to sell butter, ghee, and chhurpi (hard cheese) in the surrounding 
villages and towns. Sheep herders sold woolen products such as shawls 
locally known as raadi and jackets known as lukuni. While they used to be 

priced at ₹200–300, they now sell for ₹1,000. Sheep meat went for ₹80–120 

per kg but has now increased to ₹400 per kg. Sheep ghee and butter are still 

used for medicinal purposes but now cost ₹1500 per kg, which is drastically 

higher than the former price. Wool that was priced at ₹50–80 per kg is now 

sold at ₹300 per kg. They mentioned that the yak herders at present could 

 Number of 
Ex-herders 

Income Options Annual Income 
in Rupees (Min – 

Max in 
Thousands) 

Agriculture and 
stall-fed animal 
rearing  

22 Large cardamom 

Vegetable 

Dairy business 

144–160 

10–20 

180–210 

Tourism-
associated 
livelihoods 

8 Pack animal 
operators 

Porters/guide 

72–100 

Herding (yak 
and sheep)  

5 Yak herding 

Sheep herding 

500–600 

150–200 

Other 5 Shop and private 
vehicle driver 

150–200 



[209] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

make ₹5–6 lakhs annually, since yak herders used to sell 10–20 yaks every 
year, including young ones and older animals. Cheese and butter from the 
yaks were sold in Yuksom and were supplied to Gangtok and Darjeeling as 
well, and yak herders used to make 3–4 kgs of cheese in one day with ease 
during the months of June, July, August, and September. Yak tail-hair used 

to be sold for ₹5,000. 

Respondents mentioned that all these alternative options have their own 
limitations and associated problems. While cardamom cultivation has been 
lucrative over the last decade, production has reduced by half in the last five 
years, since 2012. The current production is between nine to ten man, a local 

term for 40 kgs, sold for between ₹1,44,000 and ₹1,60,000. However, 
cardamom cultivation was not viable in all the village clusters, especially in 
Uttarey, where the altitude is a little high for the successful growth of 
cardamom. Ex-herders in this cluster, therefore, sell vegetables and work as 
pack animal operators.  

Ex-herders from the Uttarey cluster who now farm vegetables reported a 
recent increase in crop-raiding by wild boar and black bear. Given that it is 
their sole source of income, crop depredation by wild animals has emerged 
a new conservation challenge in the region. Most of the respondents 
attributed the increased incidence of human–wildlife conflicts to pastoral 
eviction, explaining that the lack of open spaces after the removal of 
pastoralists, and the reduction of animal dung inside the forest, which 
animals such as wild boar feed on, is attracting wild animals to the villages. 
Another income option available to the ex-herders is the MGNREGA—
two members of a household can work for a maximum of 100 days at the 

rate of ₹175 per day, but there is rarely sufficient work to engage villagers 
for 100 days. Furthermore, even on obtaining jobs, there are delays and 
deductions in payments. Dairy depots were started in the study sites during 
2008–2009. The dairy business allowed ex-herders to earn between 

₹72,000–₹1,44,000 from two cows in six months. Even so, daily sales were 
possible only in Tsong village of Yuksom cluster and was not a feasible 
option in the rest of the clusters.  

Ex-herders rearing pack animals like dzo and horses mentioned that they 
worked rotationally and were dependent on the trekking season and tourists 

numbers every season. One pack animal may bring in ₹8,000–₹15,000 over 
one trekking season (April–June or October–December). They mentioned 
that the animals need to be fed oil, eggs, and good-quality stall-feed before 
trekking tours. A proper diet is essential to ensure the satisfactory 
performance of the animal during the trek. On average, respondents had 
four to six pack animals, which earned them an annual income of between 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [210] 

 

₹72,000–₹1,00,000, wherein they spent close to half of their earnings on the 
animal. They also reported that there were several instances of accidental 
injury or death of the animals during the treks, which is a great loss for the 
operator.  

6. DISCUSSION 

Earlier studies have shown that analyses that see pastoralists’ resource use 
as a challenge for biodiversity conservation are too linear and require far 
more nuanced, on-ground research. For instance, in the case of Sariska 
Tiger Reserve, urban dependence on the park and timber extraction 
pressures were found to be far more detrimental to the park’s ecology than 
the sustainable pastoral practices of the Gujjar herders. In another example 
involving Keoladeo National Park, the eradication of water buffalo herding 
led to a decline in migrant bird populations. Grazing in the park had helped 
in maintaining the ecological balance by keeping a check on weeds; 
removing the herders upset this balance (Lewis 2003). However, the 
eviction of Sikkim pastoralists is not a clear-cut case of conservation-
induced displacement but a unique one influenced by the politics of 
knowledge production and state politics around pastoralism. Pastoral 
practices, which were seen as an integral part of local culture and were 
promoted during the period of monarchy until the 1950s, were reframed as 
a primitive way of living in the modern state of Sikkim. The grazing ban is 
an important subject of political discussion and argument among the 
leading electoral parties, with the opposition party promising to repeal the 
ban at the time of the fieldwork of this study. Most of the respondents 
mentioned that they had neither been aware of the grazing ban beforehand 
nor the reasons for the pastoral evictions. They also reported that no 
consent had been taken from them prior to the evictions, which was clearly 
against the Biodiversity Convention rules (Kothari and Pathak 2009). The 
pastoral evictions at KNP were based on the popular “overgrazing” 
narrative, and no systematic analysis was conducted to establish the relation 
between grazing and vegetation degradation. The absence of scientific 
studies prior to displacement, and the lack of an objective assessment 
showing ecological benefits, have been some of the strongest critiques of 
conservation-induced displacement across India (Kabra 2019; Kothari and 
Pathak 2009; Lasgorceix and Kothari 2009; Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 
2009). There was also speculation about some pastoralists being engaged in 
illegal trade of medical plants and wildlife poaching, but instead of looking 
for individual culprits, the government adopted the simpler solution of a 
grazing ban and pastoral evictions. 



[211] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

6.1 Overall Long-term Implications of the Grazing Ban and 
Displacement 

Earlier empirical studies in India have highlighted that conservation-
induced displacements have a wide variety of social and ecological 
outcomes. Some of the examples include the case of Similipal Tiger 
Reserve, Odisha, where farmer evictions resulted in increased food 
insecurity (Dash and Behera 2018), and the case of Sahariya evictions from 
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, where evictions deteriorated 
material conditions due to loss of livelihoods and alienation from the 
natural resource base (Kabra 2009). In the case of Biligiri Ranganathaswamy 
Temple Tiger Reserve, Karnataka, evictions resulted in the dispossession of 
the rural poor and reduced income post-eviction and led to the emergence 
of new conservation challenges in the form of increased weeds inside the 
park and an increase in human–wildlife conflicts (Rai, Benjaminsen, 
Krishnan, and Madegowda 2019). Even in the case of KNP, long-term 
implications included economic impoverishment of pastoralists, loss of 
livelihood due to loss of access to the park, cultural loss of pastoral 
practices, the transition of pastoralists to farming and other small, private, 
and tourism-related jobs, and a widening economic gap between the small 
and big herders. All these repercussions, in turn, resulted in social conflicts 
between community members along with the emergence of new 
conservation challenges. The grazing ban and evictions had questionable 
benefits for the ecology of the park and have not necessarily helped in 
solving the issue of perceived “overgrazing”. 

The involvement of some ex-herders in the evictions resulted in social 
conflicts; ex-herders faced hostility and social exclusion for breaching the 
trust of their own community members. Ex-herders who had shifted to 
farming mentioned that incidents of crop depredation by wild boar and 
black bears had increased in the recent past after the implementation of the 
grazing ban. They also attributed the more frequent instances of human–
wildlife conflicts to the lack of any open expanses inside the forests, as 
herders used to maintain empty spaces around their goaths.  The frequency 
of these incidents has created new conservation challenges in and around 
KNP. Even the ex-herders noticed that their forced absence had negatively 
influenced the ecology of the region, especially of high-altitude summer 
pastures, noting instances of delayed flowering and increased domination by 
non-palatable species in the rangelands (Singh et al. 2021). A small 
percentage of the ex-herders now worked in tourism within KNP in the 
lowest-paying jobs and explained how the evictions had resulted in their 
economic impoverishment and marginalization. Further, they reported that 
unlike the rotational grazing that they used to practice, pack animals were 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [212] 

 

kept in one area during the non-tourist seasons, resulting in negative 
impacts on the ecology of the pastures. Big and wealthy herders gained 
exclusive access to the park, and, therefore, their herd sizes have doubled 
over the last 15 years, which has further widened the gap between small and 
big herders. Overall, the long-term implications have been economic 
impoverishment, emergence of new conservation challenges, social 
disparities, and a wider economic gap between the small and big herders.  

Figure 2: Long-term Implications of the Grazing Ban: Social Conflicts, Emergence 
of New Conservation Challenges, and Social Disparity 

 

Source: Author’s analysis 

Unplanned displacements and the absence of alternative options in other 
parts of India have resulted in a variety of conservation challenges. In 
Orissa, for instance, Adivasi relocation for the biodiversity conservation of 
Lakhari Valley eventually increased the rate of human–elephant conflicts 
(Ramdas 2010). In another study, Rangarajan and Shahabuddin (2009) 
reported similar findings of newly emerging conservation challenges with 
the removal of herders from Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, 
India. Over time, forest officials had to manually cut and burn the 
understory of the forest to provide space for wild ungulates, proving that 
some level of human disturbance was indeed beneficial for the forests 
(Rangarajan et al. 2010).  



[213] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Do All Pastoralists Pay for “Biodiversity Conservation”? 

While there has been limited research on the consequences of pastoral 
evictions, our findings share similarities with earlier work on physical 
displacements that highlight that conservation-induced displacement has 
the greatest impact on weaker sections within the displaced community 
(Hall et al. 2014; Rantala, Vihemäki, Swallow, and Jambiya 2013). It is 
important to note that in KNP, the grazing ban has had differing impacts 
on herders. Responses to the pastoral evictions have also varied based on 
wealth class. The findings of the study conducted by Rantala et al. (2013), in 
the Derema region of Tanzania, echoes ours, as it highlights the diverse 
impacts of displacement on displaced farmers based on wealth class. 
Despite the influential and big farmers receiving easy and timely access to 
compensation, the poor did not, which further reinforced existing 
inequalities and social differentiation.  

In the case of Sikkim, the low- and middle-class herders of Sikkim adopted 
a variety of livelihoods to cope with the sudden loss of income. Similar 
findings were observed by Hall et al. (2014), in Tanzania, where the lower 
two categories of the displaced community combined a diverse set of 
occupations to make a living—running shops, trading, and building rental 
houses (Hall et al. 2014). Rantala et al. (2013) have shown that the lower and 
the middle class used up all their money to meet immediate needs after the 
payment of rehabilitation packages, resulting in economic loss and reduced 
land size. Reduced income post evictions is a similar finding that has been 
previously reported in a study conducted in Tanzania, where a local 
community around Uluguru Nature Reserve lost access to cultivation land 
inside a protected area. They continued to face reduced income and 
livelihood uncertainty even after the evictions were completed (Nyenza, 
Nzunda, and Katani 2013). In short, big herders benefitted from the 
grazing ban and raked in increased profits, while the cost of biodiversity 
conservation was borne by the poor. Our study, thus, contributes to the 
school of work that highlights that the long-term implications of unplanned 
conservation-induced displacement are definitively negative for lower 
wealth classes with absolutely no evidence of conservation benefits.  

7. CONCLUSION 

Given the wide variety of flora and fauna in KNP, biodiversity conservation 
inside the park is absolutely critical, and efforts must certainly be made in 
this direction. However, it should not be undertaken at the cost of social 
and economic losses or in the absence of systematic studies and planning. 
Instead, conservation efforts should involve rural locals from lower wealth 
classes to identify how local livelihoods like pastoralism can co-exist with 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [214] 

 

conservation agendas in the region. The most acute impacts of the ban for 
ex-herders were loss of livelihood and income, following their restricted 
access to grazing grounds (for majority of herders from lower and middle 
wealth class) and transition of pastoralists to farming. While legal recourse 
was sought through an alliance between the ex-herders of the middle and 
high wealth classes, only the powerful and elite became the face of this 
political tussle. Additionally, even after losing the legal battle, the powerful 
herders continued to use the pastures inside KNP and have doubled their 
herd sizes over the past 15 years. However, the low and middle-class 
pastoralists were severely impacted and were further marginalized after 
losing access to the park. Given the lack of advance planning of alternative 
livelihoods and rehabilitation packages, the middle and low wealth class 
herders continue to face long-term challenges, even after opting for other 
available alternatives. Conservation-induced displacement without 
providing alternative plans and livelihood options for the displaced 
community has been widely critiqued as being unethical and socially unjust 
(Rangarajan and Shahbuddin 2009; Brockington 2004), wherein the cost of 
conservation is exclusively paid by the poor for the regional and global 
good (Beinart and Coates 1995; Madhusudan and Raman 2003; Saberwal et 
al. 2001). Our study offers yet another example where the poor pastoralists 
of KNP ended up paying the price for its conservation.  

Earlier research conducted in the field of conservation-induced 
displacement in India mostly focussed on the immediate implications of 
displacement, barring a few exceptions where researchers have maintained a 
long-term engagement with displacement geographies and their 
micropolitics (Kabra and Mahalwal 2019). Given the 15-year gap between 
the evictions and this research, our study seeks to further understand the 
long-term implications of unplanned evictions and highlights the socio-
ecological complexities of pastoral evictions in Indian Himalaya. The 
removal of indigenous communities has been widely critiqued for being 
based on no scientific evidence or for focusing solely on ecosystem 
structure and function, without exploring variable human pressures 
(Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2009). It has been further argued that while 
the benefits of conservation are reaped by regional, national, and global 
players, its costs are borne primarily by the local poor, who are already 
marginalized (Balmford and Whitten 2003; Kabra 2018). In case of KNP 
too, protected areas that had previously been used only by local herders 
were eventually made accessible to regional and national tourists, and 
“conservation” was achieved at the cost of pastoral livelihoods. 
Community-based initiatives have been identified to be the best alternative 
to displacement in rich biodiversity sites (Lasgorceix and Kothari 2009).  



[215] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Pastoral evictions have long been believed to be the only method of 
conserving rangelands across Asia and Africa. However, as seen in the case 
of KNP, such evictions may result in a variety of social and conservation 
conflicts in the long run and may completely fail to address the primary 
issue of “overgrazing”, whether perceived or real. Within KNP, there are 
several sites with no exposure to grazing for over 15 years as well as sites 
where grazing never ceased. KNP can thus be an excellent model to 
examine the effects of grazing and study the role of pastoralism. Future 
research in the region should consider the impacts of different grazing 
intensities on floral and faunal diversity and should potentially provide 
important insights into rangeland conservation and management. 
Investigating the role of climate change may add another layer to this 
discussion. Taking into consideration the current state interest in repealing 
the ban, future research can focus on documenting the process of 
reintroducing pastoralism and how the cultural and economic dimensions 
of pastoralism unfold with such a reintroduction. 

Instead of removing the pastoralists, a successful conservation plan could 
be co-opting local knowledge and institutions and identifying ways of co-
existence in the pastoral landscape of India while paying closer attention to 
questions of equality and sustainability. Government agencies must engage 
with local formal and informal institutions to re-initiate rotational grazing 
practices, help deal with wildlife crimes, monitor livestock, and maintain 
equity among local herders. Pastoralists’ knowledge and pastoral institutions 
can be extremely helpful in co-evolving mechanisms to ensure biological 
conservation, as well as sustainable livelihood options in and around the 
protected areas of South Asia. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
We sincerely thank the Forest, Environment, and Wildlife Department and 
the Government of Sikkim for their support. The pilot study for this 
research was funded by the Ambedkar University Delhi with the Learning 
Enhancement Fund. We thank Asmita Kabra for her guidance in the study 
design and her inputs at the early stages of manuscript writing. We are 
grateful to Rohit Negi and Rishi Kumar Sharma for their insights at 
different stages of study design and manuscript writing. Special thanks go to 
Syed Shoaib Ali for discussions that helped improve the manuscript 
substantially. This research would not have been possible without our field 
assistants—Ramesh Chettri and Chatur Singh Limboo—and the generous 
support and interest of the ex-herders of West Sikkim. Comments and 
suggestions provided by two anonymous reviewers and copyedits by 
Chitralekha Manohar were extremely useful in improving on the 
manuscript. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [216] 

 

REFERENCES 
Agrawal, Arun, and Kate Redford. 2009. “Conservation and Displacement: An 

Overview.” Conservation and Society 7 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–

4923.54790  

Balmford, Andrew, and Tony Whitten. 2003. “Who Should Pay for Tropical 

Conservation, and How Could the Costs Be Met?” Oryx 37 (2): 238–250. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000413  

Behnke, Roy, and I Scoones. 1992. “Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for 

Rangeland Management in Africa.” Issue Paper 33. London: International Institute 

for Environment and Development.  

Beinart, William, and Peter Coates. 1995. “Environment and History: The Taming 

of Nature in USA and South Africa.” London: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203295786.  

Bhagwat, Shweta, Manasi Diwan, and Vivek Venkataramani. 2012. “Study of 

Ecological and Socio–Economic and Livelihood: Dimensions of Grazing 

Exclusion in Protected Forests of West Sikkim.”  

Briske, David D, Sam D Fuhlendorf, and Fred E Smeins. 2003. “Vegetation 

Dynamics on Rangelands: A Critique of the Current Paradigms.” Journal of Applied 

Ecology 40 (4): 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365–2664.2003.00837.x  

Brockington, Dan. 2004. “Community Conservation, Inequality and Injustice: 

Myths of Power in Protected Area Management.” Conservation and Society 2 (2): 411–

432.  

Brockington, Daniel, and Jim Igoe. 2006. “Eviction for Conservation: A Global 

Overview.” Conservation and Society 4 (3): 424–470. Ashoka Trust for Research in 

Ecology and the Environment and Wolters Stable. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2006.00335.x  

Caravani, Matteo. 2019. “'De–pastoralisation’ in Uganda’s Northeast: From 

Livelihoods Diversification to Social Differentiation. Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (7): 

1323–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1517118  

Cernea, Michael M. 2005. “'Restriction of Access' is Displacement: A Broader 

Concept and Policy.” Forced Migration Review (28): 48–49.  

Cernea, Michael M, and Kai Schmidt–Soltau. 2006. “Poverty Risks and National 

Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement.” World Development 34 (10): 

1808–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.02.008  

Colchester, Marcus. 2004. “Conservation Policy and Indigenous Peoples.” Cultural 

Survival Quarterly 28 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.02.004.  

Conte, Thomas J, and Bryan Tilt. 2014. “The Effects of China’s Grassland 

Contract Policy on Pastoralists’ Attitudes Towards Cooperation in an Inner 

Mongolian Banner.” Human Ecology 42 (6): 837–846. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745–014–9690–4.  

https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.54790
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.54790
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000413
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203295786
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365–2664.2003.00837.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00335.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00335.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1517118
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.02.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.02.004
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745–014–9690–4


[217] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Dash, Madhusmita, and Bhagirath Behera. 2018. “Biodiversity Conservation, 

Relocation and Socio-economic Consequences: A Case Study of Similipal Tiger 

Reserve, India.” Land Use Policy 78 (June): 327–337. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.030.  

Ellis, James E, and David M Swift. 1988. “Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems: 

Alternate Paradigms and Implications for Development.” Journal of Range 

Management 41 (6): 450–459. https://doi.org/10.2307/3899515.  

Fanari, Eleonara. 2019. “Relocation from Protected Areas as a Violent Process in 

the Recent History of Biodiversity Conservation in India.” Ecology, Economy and 

Society–the INSEE Journal 2 (1): 43–76. https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.55.  

Gonin, Alexis, and Dennis Gautier. 2015. “Shift in Herders’ Territorialities from 

Regional to Local Scale: The Political Ecology of Pastoral Herding in Western 

Burkina Faso.” Pastoralism 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570–015–0023–z.  

Gooch, Pernille. 2009. “Victims of Conservation or Rights as Forest Dwellers: Van 

Gujjar Pastoralists Between Contesting Codes of Law.” Conservation and Society 7 (4): 

239–248. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.65171.  

Hall, Jaclyn M, Neil D Burgess, Salla Rantala, Heini Vihemäki, George Jambiya, 

Roy E Gereu, Fortunatus Makonda, Fadhili Njilima, Adam Kizaji. 2014. 

“Ecological and Social Outcomes of a New Protected Area in Tanzania.” 

Conservation Biology 28 (6): 1512–1521. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12335.  

Ichinkhorloo, Byambabaatar, and Emily T Yeh. 2016. “Ephemeral ‘Communities’: 

Spatiality and Politics in Rangeland Intervention in Mongolia.” Journal of Peasant 

Studies 43 (August): 1010–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1168812.  

Ingty, Tenzing. 2021. “Pastoralism in the Highest Peaks: Role of the Traditional 

Grazing Systems in Maintaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function in the Alpine 

Himalaya.” PLOS ONE 16 (1): 1–19. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245221.  

Kabra, Asmita. 2009. “Conservation–induced Displacement: A Comparative Study 

of Two Indian Protected Areas.” Conservation and Society 7 (4): 249. 

https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.65172.  

Kabra, Asmita. 2018. “Dilemmas of Conservation Displacement from Protected 

Areas.” In Challenging the Prevailing Paradigm of Displacement and Resettlement: 

Risks, Impoverishment, Legacies, Solutions, edited by Michael M Cernea and Julie 

K Maldonado, 117–140. New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163062–6.  

Kabra, Asmita. 2019. “Ecological Critiques of Exclusionary Conservation.” Ecology, 

Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 2 (1): 9–26. 

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.51.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.030
https://doi.org/10.2307/3899515
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.55
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570–015–0023–z
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.65171
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12335
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1168812
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245221
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.65172
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163062–6
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.51


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [218] 

 

Kabra, Asmita, and Sonam Mahalwal. 2019. “The Micropolitics of Dispossession 

and Resistance: Case Study of a Proposed Dam in Central India.” Development and 

Change 50 (6): 1509–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12447  

 Kohli, Mayank, Tserennadmid Nadia Mijiddorj, Kulbhushansingh Ramesh 

Suryawanshi, Charudutt Mishra, Bazartseren Boldgiv, and Mahesh Sankaran. 2021. 

“Grazing and Climate Change Have Site–Dependent Interactive Effects on 

Vegetation in Asian Montane Rangelands.” Journal of Applied Ecology 58 (3): 539–

549. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2664.13781.  

Korf, Benedikt, Tobias Hagmann, and Rony Emmenegger. 2015. “Re-spacing 

African Drylands: Territorialization, Sedentarization and Indigenous 

Commodification in the Ethiopian Pastoral Frontier.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 

42 (5): 881–901.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1006628.  

Kothari, Ashish, and Neema Pathak. 2009. “Conservation and Rights in India: Are 

We Moving Towards Any Kind of Harmony?” Pune: Kalpavriksh: Environmental 

Action Group.   

Lam, LaiMing, and Saumik Paul. 2014. “Disputed Land Rights and Conservation-

led Displacement: A Double Whammy on the Poor.” Conservation and Society 12 (1): 

65–76. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.132132.  

Lasgorceix, Antoine, and Ashish Kothari. 2009. “Displacement and Relocation of 

Protected Areas: A Synthesis and Analysis of Case Studies. Economic and Political 

Weekly 44 (49): 37–47.  

Lewis, Michael. 2003. “Cattle and Conservation at Bharatpur: A Case Study in 

Science.” Conservation and Society 1 (1): 1–21. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26396448.  

Li, Shou–Li, Fei–Hai Yu, Marinus JA Werger, Ming Dong, Satu Ramula, and Pieter 

A Zuidema. 2013. “Understanding the Effects of a New Grazing Policy: The 

Impact of Seasonal Grazing on Shrub Demography in the Inner Mongolian 

Steppe.” Journal of Applied Ecology 50 (6): 1377–1386. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2664.12159.  

Madhusudan, MD, and TR Shankar Raman. 2003. “Conservation as if Biological 

Diversity Matters: Preservation versus Sustainable Use in India.” Conservation and 

Society 1: 50–59.  

Mortimore, Michael. 1998. “Roots in the African Dust: Sustaining the Sub–Saharan 

Drylands.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511560064.  

Muhammed, Faheem. 2020. “Culture, Communication and Colonial Forest Policy: 

Van Gujjar Marginalization and Struggle for Forest Rights.” International Journal of 

Multidisciplinary Educational Research 9 (9): 27. 

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13128326.v1.  

https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12447
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2664.13781
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1006628
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.132132
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26396448
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2664.12159
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511560064
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13128326.v1


[219] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Mwaikusa, JT. 1993. “Community Rights and Land Use Policies in Tanzania: The 

Case of Pastoral Communities.” Journal of African Law 37 (2): 144–163. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855300011219.  

Myers, Norman, Russell A Mittermeler, Cristina G Mittermeler, Gustavo AB da 

Fonseca, and Jennifer Kent. 2000. “Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation 

Priorities.” Nature 403 (6772): 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501.  

Nyenza, Oliva Marcus, Emmanuel F Nzunda, and Josiah Z Katani. 2013. “Socio-

ecological Resilience of People Evicted for Establishment of Uluguru Nature 

Reserve in Morogoro Region.” Tanzania. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 22 (3): 37–41. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.810405.  

Pozo, RA, JJ Cusack, P Acebes, JE Malo, J Traba, EC Iranzo, P Corti, et al. 2021. 

Reconciling Livestock Production and Wild Herbivore Conservation: Challenges 

and Opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36 (8): 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.05.002.  

Rai, Nitin D, Tor A Benjaminsen, Siddhartha Krishnan, and C Madegowda. 2019. 

“Political Ecology of Tiger Conservation in India: Adverse Effects of Banning 

Customary Practices in a Protected Area.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 40 

(1): 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12259.  

Rangarajan, Mahesh, and Ghazala Shahabuddin. 2009. “Displacement and 

Relocation from Protected Areas Towards a Biological and Historical Synthesis.” 

Conservation and Society 4 (3): 359–378. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.49217.  

Rantala, Salla E, Heini Vihemäki, Brent M Swallow, and George Jambiya. 2013. 

“Who Gains and Who Loses from Compensated Displacement from Protected 

Areas? The Case of the Derema Corridor, Tanzania.” Conservation and Society 11 (2): 

97–111. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.115721.  

Saberwal, Vasant Kabir. 1996. “The Politicization of Gaddi Access to Grazing 

Resources in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, 1960 to 1994.” Himalaya, the Journal of the 

Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies 16 (1): 7–12.  

Saberwal, Vasant Kabir, Mahesh Rangarajan, and Ashish Kothari. 2001. People, 

Parks and Wildlife: Towards Coexistence. New Delhi, India: Orient Longman.  

Sagari Ramdas. 2010. “Gajah and Praja: Conservation, Control and Conflict.” 

Economic and Political Weekly 45 (49).  

Salafky, Nick, and Eva Wollenberg. 2000. “Linking Livelihoods and Conservation a 

Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs 

and Biodiversity.” World Development 28 (8): 1421–1438. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305–750X(00)00031–0.  

Schmidt, Matthias, and Olivia Pearson. 2016. “Pastoral Livelihoods Under 

Pressure: Ecological, Political and Socioeconomic Transitions in Afar (Ethiopia).” 

Journal of Arid Environments 124: 22–30. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.003.  

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855300011219
https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.810405
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.05.002
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12259
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.49217
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–4923.115721
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305–750X(00)00031–0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.003


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [220] 

 

Shahabuddin, Ghazala, Ravi Kumar, and Manish Shrivastava. 2007. “Creation of 

‘Inviolate Space’: Lives, Livelihoods and Conflict in Sariska Tiger Reserve.” 

Economic and Political Weekly 42 (20): 1855–1862.  

Sharma, Eklabya, Rita Sharma, KK Singh, and G Sharma. 2000. “A Boon for 

Mountain Populations – Large Cardamom Framing in the Sikkim Himalaya.” 

Mountain Research and Development 20 (2): 108–111. 

https://doi.org/10.1659/02764741(2000)020[0108:ABFMP]2.0.CO;2.  

Singh, Rashmi. 2020. “Himal Rakshaks of Sikkim: The Burden of Being the Flag–

bearers of Community–based Conservation.” Ecology, Economy and Society–the 

INSEE Journal 3 (July): 179–183. https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.110.  

Singh, Rashmi, Rishi Kumar Sharma, Tsering Uden Bhutia, Kinzong Bhutiaand 

Suresh Babu. 2021. “Conservation Policies, Eco–Tourism, and End of Pastoralism 

in Indian Himalaya?” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5 (March): 1–11. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.613998.  

Tambe, Sandeep, Nima Tashi Bhutia, and ML Arrawatia. 2012. “People's Opinion 

on the Impacts of ‘Ban on Grazing’ in Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary, Sikkim, 

India.” Sikkim: The Mountain Institute (TMI), Sikkim Office.  

Tambe, Sandeep, and GS Rawat. 2009. “Ecology, Economics, and Equity of the 

Pastoral Systems in the Khangchendzonga National Park, Sikkim Himalaya, India.” 

Ambio 38 (2): 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044–7447–38.2.95.  

Vetter, Susanne. 2005. “Rangelands at Equilibrium and Non–equilibrium: Recent 

Developments in the Debate.” Journal of Arid Environments 62 (2): 321–341. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015.  

Weber, Keith, and Horst, Shannon. 2011. “Desertification and Livestock Grazing: 

The Roles of Sedentarization, Mobility and Rest.” Pastoralism 1(1): 19. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/2041–7136–1–19.  

Weldemichel, Teklehaymanot G. 2020. “Othering Pastoralists, State Violence, and 

the Remaking of Boundaries in Tanzania's Militarised Wildlife Conservation 

Sector.” Antipode 52 (5): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12638.  

West, Paige, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington. 2006. “Parks and Peoples: The 

Social Impact of Protected Areas.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251–277. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308.  

Yeh, Emily T. 2005. “Green Governmentality and Pastoralism in Western China: 

Converting Pastures to Grasslands.” Nomadic Peoples 9 (1–2): 9–29. 

https://doi.org/10.3167/082279405781826164.  

Zhang, Jing, Xiaoyong Cui, Yanfen Wang, Gongbuzeren Minghao Zhuang, and 

Baoming Ji. 2020. “Ecological Consequence of Nomad Settlement Policy in the 

Pasture Area of Qinghai – Tibetan Plateau: From Plant and Soil Perspectives.” 

Journal of Environmental Management 260 (October 2019): 110114. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110114.  

https://doi.org/10.1659/02764741(2000)020%5b0108:ABFMP%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.110
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.613998
https://doi.org/10.1579/0044–7447–38.2.95
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015
https://doi.org/10.1186/2041–7136–1–19
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12638
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308
https://doi.org/10.3167/082279405781826164
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110114


[221] Rashmi Singh, Kinzong Sherap Bhutia, Tshering Uden Bhutia, Suresh Babu 

 

Zhizhong, Wu, and Du Wen. 2008. “Pastoral Nomad Rights in Inner Mongolia.” 

Nomadic Peoples 12 (2): 13–33. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120202.  

https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120202

