Guest guest Posted November 20, 2005 Report Share Posted November 20, 2005 http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/19/stories/2005081903771000.htm<javascript:ol('http\ ://www.hindu.com/2005/08/19/stories/2005081903771000.htm');> Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Aug 19, 2005 Tigers don't need company The report of the Tiger Task Force of the Government of India that was submitted to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently provides fresh confirmation, if any were needed, that the biggest threat to the future of the charismatic animal comes primarily from unsustainable population pressure on thinning forests. The Task Force headed by Sunita Narain, has displayed commendable transparency by making its report available in full on Project Tiger's website. The acknowledgment by the panel that inviolate forests are necessary to host viable tiger populations is an encouraging endorsement of established conservation practice. It has, however, missed the opportunity to recommend an immediate security blanket for the most vulnerable protected areas, based on important data available from recent scientific research. The report makes significant contributions to the policy debate on incorporation of good science in conservation, accurate assessment of tiger populations, protection against poaching, and harmonious tourism to generate funds for local communities; much-needed reform in the Ministry of Environment and Forests by way of creating a less bureaucratic, research-oriented wildlife wing is another positive recommendation. There can be little support, however, for the strident assertion made by the Task Force (with one member dissenting strongly) that in many places, people and tigers would have to co-exist, given the difficulty and expense involved in relocating an estimated 350,000 people from tiger reserves and nearly ten times that number from all protected areas, and the colossal failure of past rehabilitation programmes. Conservationists, including the dissenting member of the Task Force, Valmik Thapar, have raised the pertinent question whether the deprivation among communities dwelling in and around forests can be overcome merely by enabling legal exploitation of protected areas that are the last bastions of the tiger, given that it has not been achieved using the rest of the available land. A well thought out policy will readily recognise the fallacy of the anachronistic " co-existence theory " as it is bound to pit more people against tigers with well-known consequences for conservation; tiger biology shows that the big cats simply do not survive without inviolate spaces. The sole option before the Government of India is to devote itself to a time-bound and liberal relocation programme. Funds for the rehabilitation of the forest-dwelling communities cannot be a constraint, considering that the budget of just the Rural Development Ministry can achieve the objective painlessly; such a programme, supported also by cess proceeds from tourism, irrigation and other beneficiary sectors, will bring to the villagers, barring few exceptions, the benefits of mobility, education and healthcare access, all of which, the Task Force laments, are unavailable now. National policy needs urgently to identify inviolate spaces as recommended by the Task Force and relocate people honourably in partnership with State Governments. [image: Go to previous message]<javascript:S('getmsg','','','','','CE8CC856-87C7-4F70-B5DC-596300D66437\ ','','','prev','')> | [image: Go to next message]<javascript:S('getmsg','','','','','CE8CC856-87C7-4F70-B5DC-596300D66437\ ','','','next','')> | [image: Delete]<http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?msg=CE8CC856-87C7-4\ F70-B5DC-596300D66437 & start=0 & len=35271 & imgsafe=y & curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000\ %2d0000%2d000000000001 & a=8404dabcd1cd8a2af764a3ee98d41fa13d9d5ad42add7c7a91e52c1\ c41f69ed6#> | Inbox <javascript:HM('curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001')> http://www.flonnet.com/fl2218/stories/20050909003409700.htm<javascript:ol('http:\ //www.flonnet.com/fl2218/stories/20050909003409700.htm');> CONSERVATION Saving the tiger ASHA KRISHNAKUMAR The report submitted by the Tiger Task Force restarts the debate on strategies to save the animal and at the same time protect the interests of people living in tiger reserves. MURALI KUMAR. K The Tiger Task Force report recommends: " The habitat must be shared between the people and the tigers, so that both can coexist, as they must. The poverty of one, otherwise, will be the destruction of the other. " EARLY this year, a warning was sounded that there were no tigers in the Sariska reserve in Rajasthan. Soon it became clear that many of the other tiger reserves fared no better, raising serious questions about the practice of tiger conservation and wildlife management in the country. If the crisis had to be tackled, the real situation in the reserves had to be understood. A Tiger Task Force was set up in April by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to probe the disappearance of the tigers in Sariska. The panel submitted its report earlier in August, along with a dissent note by one of its members. The primary difference was essentially over ways to manage the reserves and conserve the tiger. The people's concern about the issue was heightened by the fundamental differences between the dissenting member and the rest of the Task Force. Public concern about the dwindling tiger population is not new in India. In the late 1960s, the situation of the big cat in India had attracted world-wide attention. Following this, India's first Task Force on tigers was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. Karan Singh, a keen conservationist and a Rajya Sabha member at the time. Its report, submitted in 1972, formed the blueprint for India's tiger conservation programme called Project Tiger. In the 1970s, eight tiger reserves were set up in different ecological systems. Each had human settlements in them, which brought enormous pressure on the reserves and the conservation programme. Thus the first Task Force, in an attempt to restrict human activity within the reserves, designated the core of each reserve as a national park and banned all human activity there; the rest of the reserve was termed the buffer area and could sustain human activity. The idea was to relocate people from the core areas, but they could coexist with the cats in the buffer areas. Since then, 28 tiger reserves have been created across the country. But two Task Forces and 30 years later, the problem of coexistence still persists. In fact, it has worsened. People continue to live in both the core and the buffer areas, the resettlement processes seem to have hardly taken off, and more people have moved into the reserves for various reasons, including deforestation, land degradation and poverty. THE reports of tigers vanishing from the Sariska reserve came in December 2004. In March 2005, in its interim report, the Wildlife Institute of India confirmed that there were indeed no tigers in Sariska. The Prime Minister then asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the matter. According to the CBI report, since 2002 poachers have been killing tigers in the reserve; the last of the six big cats were killed in 2004. The CBI pointed to the involvement of the local people. A Tiger Task Force comprising five eminent environmentalists, ecologists and conservationists was soon set up, with Sunita Narain, Director of the Centre for Environment and Science, as the chairperson. The Task Force was to look into Sariska's problem in particular and find out if the problem extended to the other reserves as well. The Task Force was asked to suggest measures to strengthen tiger conservation; improve the methods of tiger counting and forecasting; place data on tiger conservation in the public domain; work out a new reserves management paradigm; and induce local communities, forest staff and tiger reserve managers to help in the conservation of tigers. According to the Task Force report, Sariska is a pointer to the total collapse of institutions and management systems. The main issue, it points out, is not only of saving the tiger but doing it in the Indian situation, where people have been living inside forests for generations. While pointing out that forest-dwellers should be relocated wherever possible to ease the biotic pressure on the forests and tigers, the report recommends coexistence between man and animal in other areas owing to the scarcity of land and the paucity of funds (the relocation of all families living inside the 28 tiger reserves is estimated to cost Rs.11,508 crores). The report states: " The protection of the tiger is inseparable from the protection of the forests it roams in. But the protection of these forests is itself inseparable from the fortunes of people who, in India, inhabit forest areas. " The report therefore recommends: " The habitat must be shared between the people and the tigers, so that both can coexist, as they must. The poverty of one, otherwise, will be the destruction of the other. " But conservationists who brook no human-tiger coexistence within the reserve areas, argue that the premise of continued coexistence over vast landscapes where tigers thrive ecologically, and people thrive economically, is a recipe for disaster. The Task Force recommendation to relocate people from the priority villages and to devise strategies for coexistence in the other villages, they say, is a bundle of contradictions. They point out that the inherent contradictions in the solution would only lead to further degradation of the tiger habitat. According to them, many communities have lived in equilibrium within forest habitats in the past. But those were times when fewer people lived in the forests and used the resources purely for their own consumption. But today, the numbers of forest-dwellers have gone up and with forest areas shrinking, they put tremendous pressure on the forests and the tigers. Conservationists argue that each tiger needs to eat at least 50 cow-size animals a year to survive, and if a tiger has to share space with cows and people, the conflict between tiger and man will be eternal and perennial, detrimental to both. They argue that the areas falling within the reserves - barely 1 per cent of the country's land area - should be made inviolate and people living within these areas must be relocated. This, they say, is the only way to resolve the issue and save the tiger. But the Task Force report argues that nearly half of the tiger population, in fact, lives outside the reserves. It also points out that several families from the 80 villages near the reserves, which were relocated in the past, have returned to the forests. This, the conservationists say, is because of the failure of the resettlement schemes and the way they were implemented. According to conservation and wildlife film-maker Shekar Dattatri (The Hindu, August 13, 2005), a decentralised process, with realistic budgets and involving good local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the handholding of the settlers until they find their feet outside the reserve areas can save the tigers and improve the lives of the people. The Task Force report, while agreeing that relocation of all forest dwellers is the ideal solution, wonders where the funds would come from, particularly considering that 1,500 villages (66,516 families) still lie within the reserve areas and hardly 80 villages (2,904 families) have been relocated in the past 30 years. At the government-stipulated norm of Rs.1 lakh to relocate a family, the cost works out to Rs.665 crores plus land cost (Rs.11,508 crores at an enhanced rate of Rs.2.5 lakh for a family, including the land cost, which will be Rs.9,645 crores). Contrast this with the Rs.373 crores spent on Project Tiger by both the Central and the States governments in the past 30 years. Conservationists point to such reserves as the Bhadra in Karnataka as good relocation projects, which can be emulated. The report, however, stresses the fact that the Bhadra reserve had spent Rs.8.3 lakhs (including the land cost) to relocate each family. While even Rs.1 lakh to relocate one family is hard to put together, it is difficult to imagine how the country can set aside funds at Rs.8.3 lakh a family for the 1,500 villages located within the reserve areas. Apart from the money, the administration and logistics of relocation are crucial factors, particularly as hardly any land is available for relocation, the report says. Conservationists argue that the welfare of the communities living inside the forests cannot be ensured by a one-size-fits-all solution. There is a need to devise pragmatic, area-specific solutions that take into account the aspirations of the local people as well as the precarious situation of the reserve areas. Frontline Volume 22 - Issue 18, Aug 27 - Sep 09, 2005 India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU Home • Contents Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend CONSERVATION `The tiger has been placed in its coffin' Interview with Valmik Thapar, wildlife conservationist. S. THANTHONI The Union government set up the Tiger Task Force in April this year, comprising well-known environmentalists and wildlife activists in the aftermath of the tiger-disappearance scare at the Sariska reserve, Rajasthan. The Task Force report, " Joining the Dots " , which was presented to the Centre in August, had a lone voice of dissent, that of conservationist Valmik Thapar. In an interview given to Annie Zaidi, Valmik Thapar explains his stance on the issue, arguing that tigers and humans simply cannot coexist. Your name is not included in the list of authors of the Tiger Task Force report. Yes, it is not. In fact, I was never shown the final report. But I have said what I wanted to say in my note of dissent. I have problems with the chapter on `coexistence'. I do not believe that tigers and humans can coexist. The authors talk about `inviolate tracks' in reserved areas. But in the following line, they talk of giving new packages to allow villagers to coexist [with the tigers]. I also don't agree with the one-year deadline; it is just not practical. What went wrong? We must remember that the focus here is on tigers. If you wanted to deal with people's problems, you should have set up a `People's Task Force'. The Tiger Task Force cannot deal with the whole cauldron of life. I say, give the villagers the best [relocation] deal money can buy. Don't just throw them out. For example, in the Bhadra reserved forests in Karnataka, the forest-dwellers were given the best agricultural land possible, in Chikmagalur. We should give the villagers the option of the best land, in rural or urban areas. But if you move one person and give the other person the option of staying back where he is, why would anyone want to relocate? We could also try rationalisation of boundaries. Maybe we need to redraw the boundaries [of reserved forests]. We could tackle it through the denotification of some areas, where relocation is not possible, and extend boundaries in places where there are no human settlements. The issues raised by the report cannot be tackled through the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. In its present form, there is no provision in the Act for the concept of coexistence. It would need major amendments and that would mean sending it back to Parliament. According to me, that would be a negative development. What were the problems you had with the Task Force report? I think it is great that the Task Force could come out with such a voluminous report about recent events, in just three months. There are some very good suggestions in the report. But when it comes to coexistence, according to me, it takes a nosedive. Let me give you an example. In 1970, Sariska had 40 tigers. Ranthambhore [also in Rajasthan] had 14. Ranthambhore resettled 12 villages that were located in the heart of the forest. Sariska tried to resettle one village, but failed. As a result, despite two very bad years of poaching - 1992 and this last year - Ranthambhore has 26 tigers. In fact, the figure had gone up to 50 tigers at one point. Sariska, you know the story. The problem is, poachers use the villages as their base. They enter the village, go out and kill, and return to the village. In places where there aren't many villages, poachers find it hard to strike. At the most, they can strike from the fringes of the forest. Why do you say that the tiger cannot coexist with people? You have to understand the tiger as a species. Peacocks can coexist. Nilgai can co-exist. They can eat grain or the people may even feed them. Tigers cannot coexist because the tiger will eat milch cattle and other livestock. That is its food. Or it will eat people. This brings it in direct conflict with humans. Also, human settlements get bigger and bigger. They will encroach on more and more land, which is the tiger's habitat. The conflict would increase with each passing year. Look at the Caspian, South Korea, Java or Bali [in Indonesia]. Tigers are extinct in these regions. They thought people would be more friendly towards tigers. It didn't happen. But have forest-dwellers not lived in peace with wildlife for centuries in the past? I've been to tribal areas where they have the `cult of the tiger'. The tribal people worship the tiger. But the market and the way people live have changed. There is a huge difference between 1905 and 2005. Some tribal rights activists claim that the tribal people actually protect wildlife and forests. Do you agree? VIVEK BENDRE Agricultural activity in the Melghat Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra. " Human settlements get bigger and bigger. They will encroach on more and more land, which is the tiger's habitat. The conflict would increase with each passing year. " I am willing to face an open debate on this. Give me one example where people have lived easily with tigers. I've worked with tigers for 30 years. I know the tribal areas and the national parks and the sanctuaries. I also know that if there were no reserved parks and guards, we would not have had any tigers. There is an opinion that tigers would be better off in the reserves if there were no armed forest guards. What about Indravati [reserve in Madhya Pradesh]? That is a naxal area, so no guards venture into the forest here, but where are the tigers? What about Palamau [Jharkhand]? Or Manas [Assam]? There were only Bodos, no forest guards. The great one-horned rhino was wiped out, as a result. Would these activists [who demand fewer armed guards] demand that there be no gunmen outside their banks and ATMs? The forest is a liquid bank. Removing armed guards is like standing outside a bank, with baskets of cash, saying `take it all'. What about allegations of guards conniving with poachers? Surely poachers cannot be so active without the guards' neglect or active connivance. There are mafias everywhere in this country, including the forests. Let us be realistic. We have an entire forest machinery to protect 20 per cent of our country which fall under forests. There are some 175,000 forest guards. But no new recruitment has taken place since 1987. The average age of our guards is between 45 and 50. They cannot patrol much on foot. They cannot chase poachers. What do you expect? What about tourism? Tigers are not compatible with tourism either. In this country, tourism has been a great disturbance to the tigers. All hotels should be at least 5 km from the boundary of reserved forests and national parks. They should be open to tourists for one year and closed the next year. A rotational system might work. In any case, out of the 600 reserved forests, only about 10 get visited. The situation is desperate in these 10. What government policies have been most harmful to the tiger? The leadership is not taking strong decisions. They don't even realise that our 600 perennial rivers and streams are in areas inhabited by tigers. Protecting the tiger means protecting our water security. Whether this is intentional or because of apathy, I don't know. But after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, we have had no leader who had the wisdom to take decisions in favour of the tiger. Forests in India are a treasure house. Everyone wants to grab a bit. There is the timber mafia; I know thousands of cases where tribal people were employed to cut down trees. There is the land mafia, out to grab forest land and encroach. There are miners - mining for marble, uranium, diamonds, whatever available. It is in their interest to have forest land denotified. So, what is the next step? I think the government needs to decide whether it wants tigers, and how many? If you want only 1,000 or 1,500 tigers, then say so, and allocate resources accordingly. As it is, only 6 per cent of our 20 per cent forest-cover is wildlife-rich. You have to work around that figure and protect these regions. Coexistence can be taken elsewhere. What would you say is the future of the tiger in India? I've just finished writing my fourteenth book, The Last Tiger, which is to be released in October. The tiger has been placed in its coffin. All that remains to be seen now is what will serve as the last nail in this coffin. Nothing short of a miracle can save tigers in the wild in this country. There are many well-intentioned people, but they don't know the needs of the tiger. We have half the world's tiger population. But on the horizon, politically, I see a zero chance of its survival. Printer friendly page Send this article to Friends by E-Mail Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Contents (Letters to the Editor should carry the full postal address) [ Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar Copyright © 2005, Frontline. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of Frontline CONSERVATION `Find strategies for coexistence' Interview with Sunita Narain, Chairperson, Tiger Task Force. MANISH SWARUP /AP Sunita Narian, Chairperson, Tiger task Force. In Chennai to address a session of the international conference on " Human Centred Sustainable Development Paradigm " organised by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment, and Chairperson, Tiger Task Force, spoke to Asha Krishnakumar on the main findings of the Task Force, the lessons learnt from Project Tiger, the way forward in the conservation of tigers and management of forest reserves, and the dissent note by one of the Task Force members, Valmik Thapar. Excerpts: What was the focus of the Task Force? The Task Force was set to probe the crisis at the Sariska Reserve and to learn from it. We had to look at the paradigm of conservation in the country and to see whether we needed to make it more inclusive. But crucial is how we save the tiger in a densely populated country like India. So, it is a double challenge. How did you go about your work collecting data/information? The time given to us was very short - just three months. It was very important to gather information from a large number of people - to listen to many voices, and to understand the situations well - rather than come out with solutions. We spent the first two months essentially learning. We held four consultations, met over 200 people and visited six reserves. In the reserves, we met the top managers, the guards and frontline staff. We also met people living inside the reserves and those in the nearby villages. We got a very broad and in-depth view of what was happening in the six reserves. We also wrote to people across the country for their comments and recommendations. We got over 200 submissions. My idea was to evolve solutions rather than dictate them. What is the main finding of the Task Force? It was clear early on that there was need for resolution. There was a conflict, a stalemate - logjam, as I call it. Nobody quite knew how to move on. We understood that one of the biggest crises facing the tiger today was that we had never cared for the poor who lived in the tiger reserves. There was growing alienation and antagonism among the people there. This was destroying the management framework at these reserves. We found that the tiger was also under threat from outside - the poachers. Even though the tiger trade starts in India, it ends up in China or Tibet. Very little was known about the nature of the trade and how underground and illicit it was. Other forces - mining, developmental pressures and so on - were also at work. Thus, there was enormous pressure on the tiger from within and outside. After we met people, looked at data and analysed the problem, we realised that we cannot continue the way we had over the past 30 years. We needed to learn from the [experience of the] past three decades. We have to evolve new ways of dealing with the problem. What are the lessons learnt from Project Tiger in the past 30 years? Every crisis has given us an opportunity to reinvent ourselves and to get our strategy right. But we did not make use of the opportunities. Project Tiger started in 1973. The Project Tiger report of Dr. Karan Singh was excellent. It looked at the reality of the country and argued that the tiger reserves were essentially small breeding grounds [small islands]. The larger breeding ground [the conservation belt outside the forest] of the tiger was in the forest beyond. In 1983, the late Madhavrao Scindia also came out with an excellent report, which again argued that it was because we were turning these [reserves] into islands that we were not able to protect what was outside, which is disappearing. Between 1983 and 2005, I believe, these voices have got lost. In the mid-1990s, a similar crisis struck. Reports showed that tigers were vanishing. There was an opportunity then, as now, to reinvent our ways, to argue that these small islands [the 28 tiger reserves that constitute 1 per cent of India's total land area] must not remain so. They must become larger areas in which the tiger can thrive. The reason why the tigers are disappearing is also that half of them were found outside the reserves. And to address that we need a different strategy of conservation in which people and animals coexist. We could have got it right even in the mid-1990s. But we did not. What was the prescription for the crisis of the mid-1990s? Two British organisations - the Environmental Protection Agency and the Tiger Trust - were involved at that time. Their approach was that we need more guns, guards and fences. They wanted the tiger to be protected and the war [against the poachers] to be intensified, in some sense. But it was an opportunity we lost. In the past 10 years we have done exactly what we did in the earlier 20 years. In the past 30 years, what steps we took were detrimental to the tiger? We made these [reserves] into islands; they have become smaller and smaller; the landscape around them has become more and more degraded; the tiger cannot go out because it [the area outside] is deforested and populated; people have been poisoning them [poaching]; and people come in [to the reserves] as more and more areas are getting deforested. All these have put enormous pressure on the tigers' habitat. It is double jeopardy for the tiger. What is the way out of this situation? The way to break this would clearly be a different answer, which would have to depend on our ability both to manage our forest, to regenerate them and to find ways in which animals and people can live together. But the dissent note in your report argues for creating inviolate spaces for tigers. As discussed in the [Task Force] report, we have to create inviolate spaces for the tiger. But the reality of India is that people share the tiger's habitat and that is why we call it the Indian way of conservation. The reality is also that in the past 30 years we have only been able to relocate 80 villages. There are still 1,500 villages inside the reserves. We need Rs.11,000 crores to relocate those villages. There is then the practicality and logistics of relocation; not just about money but also about the administrative capacity to be able to relocate 1,500 villages. There is also the larger challenge - that in the forest outside, beyond the reserves, people live in any case. So, how are you going to manage this situation? Are you going to protect the tiger's future in the little reserves, making them smaller and smaller and say that this is my core area, I am going to fence it, make it into a large zoo and keep the tiger in it? Or, are you going to expand the boundaries of conservation by involving the people who live there? But this is easier said than done. I know it is a difficult challenge. I know there are no easy answers. But we have no option, given our situation. We will have to take the more difficult route and find ways in which the tiger's future can be secured through inviolate spaces and coexistence. This is the reality of India. We cannot escape that. But there are several criticisms of the solutions that you are providing in the Task Force report. The conservationists believe that our solutions are impractical, romantic and cannot happen. The tiger needs space. Tigers and humans cannot live together. This is fair. But the reality is that you do not have the land. And, even if you relocate, how many can you relocate? The conservationists will have to come to grips with reality. They will have to understand that they need to protect the tiger better in the reserves, in the core areas that are undisturbed. But to secure the tiger's future they will have to also find strategies for coexistence outside these core tiger reserves. Today you have 37,000 sq km under tiger reserves with a core area of 17,000 sq km. This can support about 1,000 tigers. One option is to secure 17,000 sq km and make a big zoo for the 1,000 tigers. If you want to double it and relocate all the 1,500 villages, maybe you can get in 1,500 or 3,000 tigers in this area. You will have to increase the space so that more tigers can live. But for that the strategy of conservation will be different. What is the locus standi of the people living within the reserve areas? People living inside the reserves have rights. But the rights of these people have not been recognised despite the law that says that you cannot notify a sanctuary unless you have taken care of the rights of the people - compensate or relocate them - living in the area. We have notified our sanctuaries and national parks without doing so. So, people live as trespassers on their own land. I do not think you can protect the tiger if you make enemies of your people. And that is my biggest plea to conservationists. What are the alternatives? Alternatives have to be found. Once you accept coexistence, you can look at options. For instance, income from tourism can be reserved for the people who live inside [the reserves]; all tourism opportunities can be managed by them; and all guards can be recruited from among the locals. This will take the pressure off the cattle and the livestock that they need to keep. Sustainable harvesting of certain crops can be done. For instance, in Tawa and Pench [reserves in Madhya Pradesh], they can do fishing, depending on the level of sustainability. And in some cases, you can also think of collaborative management. There are different options. In tourism, one can think of levying an environmental cess on all tourists entering the reserves. Money from this can go to the reserves, to the local community, in particular, those who live inside the reserves. What are the major recommendations of the Task Force? We have given a series of recommendations. But we have selected seven key ones on which we want immediate action. *The Prime Minister should chair the steering committee of Project Tiger to bring changes in the governance and institutions, with a political oversight. *More autonomy should be given for the Project Tiger Directorate to improve its working with the States. *Set up a wildlife crime bureau for the better management of poaching problems. *Do the next tiger census based on the new methodology. *Do an independent audit of the tiger reserves, which can then be made public. *Identify the priority villages and come up with a relocation strategy for them. Simultaneously work out a strategy for coexistence. *Share the revenue from tourism with local communities. We had only two options - centralise or use the existing system and tighten it. I have not only given solutions within the system but also suggested independent checks and balances. I have also suggested involving people down the line and strengthening the institutions as well. A major issue has been the techniques of estimating the number of tigers. Did the Task Force look into it? Yes. This was a major issue before us. The pugmark system that was used earlier was being misused and was unreliable. Therefore, people were counting the same pugmark several times. In fact, the Project Tigerate itself had come out with a new pugmark system. For the past two years, it had been working on a new system of estimation. That is what we reviewed. Basically, we looked at three levels of monitoring: First, extensive monitoring - you get a sense of the larger habitat, the prey base and the presence of a tiger through GIS [Geographic Information System] monitoring. Second, intensive monitoring - you do stratified sampling and use a variety of tools such as the camera trap, digitised pugmark technique and so on to improve the estimates. At the third level, you do a careful monitoring of tiger population over time. So, looking at all the three levels you get a robust estimate of the number of tigers. You can also get the estimation verified at different levels. But this will only give estimates, not exact numbers. Yes. You are not going to know the exact number of tigers, but you are going to get more reliable estimates. That is a step forward. What exactly is the issue underlying the dissent note given by one of the members of the Task Force? A prominent tiger expert, [Valmik] Thapar, has given a dissent note. We disagreed basically on two issues. Coexistence, he felt was not possible. He also wanted centralisation of power, put them all [the reserves] under one authority and to manage them all from Delhi. But we believe that in a federal country like India that will not work. We wanted to deepen the involvement rather than centralise it. We believe dialogue is far more powerful than dissent. So his dissent note as well as my response to it form part of the report. We [others in the Task Force] also believe there is a need to provide inviolate space for the tigers. My question is: How? For the first time we have put together data. Only 80 villages have been relocated. There are 1,500 still to be relocated. How are you going to do it? I want an action plan rather than emotional outbursts. They say no coexistence. Okay, no coexistence. But how are you going to do it in a country like India? Come up with a clear work plan. We have tried to do that. We have asked to identify priority villages and relocate them. Maybe that is not enough. Maybe you need to relocate all of them. But then come out with a plan along with a strategy to go about it. I am not against Thapar. But I believe that we need to move on. And under the given circumstances, I have suggested a dual approach: relocation where you can and coexistence where it is not possible, aiming at reducing pressure on the forest and tigers. All of us [in the Task Force] believe that the tiger agenda is the forest agenda. Managing forests requires the deepened involvement of the States, their agencies and the people, and not greater centralisation. In fact, centralisation has been the bane of Project Tiger. There is no involvement of the State leadership in this programme. It is very important to rebuild the State leadership and that is why we have suggested a steering committee at the State level with the Chief Minister heading it. Your report mentions problems in getting data/information. Was that a serious issue? That has been our biggest frustration. We found it hard to put together information. I was getting a lot of opinions but no data; absolutely no analyses. There were pretty picture books on tigers. But not about understanding the nature of the crisis of tigers. There were a lot of people who came out with opinions. But I was not getting a sense of the analysis that was driving that opinion. So one of our biggest efforts has been to compile information. We have put everything on the Web for all to see, analyse and discuss. I am happy that all the information is now in the public domain. Now the dialogue and the dissent on this will be better informed. We can now have a dialogue based on information. That is the big difference, I hope, this report will make. http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/001747.html [india-ej] Valmik Thapar's dissent note against the Tiger Task Farce Report *Keya Acharya* keya.acharya at gmail.com <india-ej%40indialists.org?Subject=%5BIndia-ej%5D%20Valmik%20Thapar%27s%20dissen\ t%20note%20against%20the%20Tiger%20Task%0A%09Farce%20Report & In-Reply-To=42f50715\ ..77dbdc4c.25fd.7eddSMTPIN_ADDED%40mx.gmail.com> *Sun Aug 7 05:35:18 PDT 2005* - Previous message: [india-ej] The Mumbai Floods and the Mithi River... <http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/001745.html> - Next message: [india-ej] Valmik Thapar's dissent note against the TigerTaskFarce Report <http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/001748.html> - *Messages sorted by:* [ date ]<http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/date.html#1747> [ thread ]<http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/thread.html#1747> [ subject ]<http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/subject.html#1747> [ author ]<http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/india-ej/2005-August/author.html#1747> ------------------------------ Dear Bittu, I read with interest your stridency on the issue of tribals and forests. Something worries me about both, and the wildlife lobby's opinion on the latter: I haven't done an exact survery in hectarage figures, but I have personally found that there is much, much more forest land in the hands of the affluent, passing them off as plantation lands, or just plain encroached, quite besides the State handing them over for industrial interests. Why is it that the wildlife groups have not tackled these, since these would quite certainly benefit wildlife survival ? What benefit to conservation in India can possibly be hoped to be achieved with such a divisive approach to it by conservationists themselves in India ? I personally feel that both groups need to engage; alter strategy or change tack for the benefit of forests and wildlife in India. And I feel that buttonholing the rich is one way of changing tack. I welcome your comments ! Keya On 8/7/05, Bittu Sahgal <bittusahgal at vsnl.com <http://indialists.org/mailman/listinfo/india-ej>> wrote: >* *>* Who speaks for the tiger?*>* *>* Ms. Sunita Narain's Report, available on the Project Tiger website, is*>* farcical.*>* *>* http://projecttiger.nic.in/TTF2005/executive_summary.htm*>* *>* It mouths platitudes while insinuating key recommendations that will drive*>* the final nail in the coffin of the tiger (and the most remote forest *>* tribal*>* communities).*>* *>* The Tiger Task Force was originally set up to PROTECT THE TIGER. It has*>* turned out to be a committee that seeks to EXTRACT BENEFITS FOR HUMANS *>* from*>* the forest, rather than find ways for humans to save the tiger.*>* *>* Little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Despite the self-fixed halo around*>* the heads of those (their numbers are growing on this list) who believe *>* that*>* tribal interests are best served by distributing forest lands to them, the*>* truth is that almost nowhere in India are forests safe and nowhere are*>* tribal communities intact, OTHER than in extremely remote forests where*>* market forces were kept at arms length, OR by existing Wildlife and Forest*>* laws (which Ms. Narain and Co. wish to dilute) that achieved the same*>* purpose.*>* *>* The tiger needs quiet, remote, protected forests. Communities that can *>* live*>* in such forests WITHOUT becoming conduits for selling forest resources to*>* cities are true guardians of nature. Activists who ask that communities be*>* given the right to sell fruit, tendu leaves, barks, tubers, firewood and*>* fish from protected forests to feed the insatiable demands of urban *>* dwellers*>* are deluded if they believe this will help either wildlife, or true forest*>* dwelling tribal communities.*>* *>* Bittu Sahgal,*>* Editor, Sanctuary Magazine*>* ====*>* TIGER TASK FORCE --VALMIK THAPAR'S DISSENT NOTE*>* *>* To*>* *>* Ms Sunita Naraian,*>* Chairperson,*>* Task Force for Reviewing the Management of*>* Tiger Reserves,*>* New Delhi*>* *>* *>* Subject : Dissent Note on the Draft Report of the Task Force for*>* Reviewing the Management of Tiger Reserves*>* *>* *>* Dear Ms Sunita Narain,*>* *>* Thanking you for sending me the concept paper on " A Paradigm Change*>* – " Making Conservation work " and the chapter on Co-existence of people.*>* Both raise serious issues that impact on the entire report. Let us not*>* forget that the task force was mandated to suggest measures to save the*>* tiger from vanishing off the face of India. It was a response to an *>* ongoing*>* tiger crisis. Unfortunately, in its eagerness to find 'eternal solutions'*>* for all problems afflicting the country at one go, the Committee appears *>* to*>* have lost this mission-focus and has gone adrift trying to find solutions *>* to*>* all the problems of inequity and social injustice that afflict India. In*>* the process the interests of the tiger's survival has been lost sight of.*>* *>* The fact is that all the 'potential tiger habitats in the protected*>* areas of India, add up only to 100,000 sq. km. and populations where*>* reproduction is taking place now occupy less than 20,000 sq. km. A*>* relatively small fraction of India's huge rural poor population is exposed*>* to tigers. The premise that there are vast areas of India where tigers and*>* people must be forced to co-exist through some innovative scheme of*>* increased use of underutilized forest resources by involving local people*>* does not make any sense to tiger conservation. The fact is each tiger must*>* eat 50 cow-sized animals a year to survive, and if you put it amidst cows*>* and people, the conflict will be eternal and perennial. Tigers continue to*>* lose out as they did in Sariska (and over 95% of their former range in*>* India). The premise of continued co-existence over vast landscapes where*>* tigers thrive ecologically, as well people thrive economically, is an*>* impractical dream, with which I totally disagree. Such dreaming cannot*>* save the tiger in the real world. On the other hand such a scenario will *>* be*>* a " no win " situation for everyone and result in further declines and the*>* eventual extinction of tiger populations Alternatives where tigers have*>* priority in identified protected reserves and people have priority outside*>* them have to be explored and implemented. There is no other way. The*>* present concept of a 'new' coexistence is an utopian idea, and impractical*>* and will not work. This I am absolutely clear about.*>* *>* Blaming strict nature reserves and conservation laws where tigers*>* have priority, for all the poverty and inequity driven ills that plague *>* our*>* vast country is pointless polemics: These ills are consequences of the*>* failure of development, economics and politics of the country and society *>* as*>* a whole and cannot be simple-mindedly blamed on conservationists.*>* *>* In the chapter on the co-existence of people with tigers, a tirade*>* against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 14.2.2000, 3.4.2000,*>* 10.5.2001, February, 2002, guidelines issued by the MoEF and Amicus Curiae*>* who had moved the application pursuant to which some of the above orders*>* have been passed, and clarification dated 2.7.2004 issued by the CEC for*>* implementation of the Hon'ble Court's order is totally unwarranted,*>* misplaced, unjustified and in bad taste. The report gives an impression*>* that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed these orders without application*>* of mind, which are anti-people and are against the provisions of the Wild*>* Life (Protection) Act. This view is totally incorrect and unacceptable. I*>* strongly believe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders have been of *>* great*>* help in furthering the cause of conservation and the protection of *>* wildlife*>* habitat. The large scale destruction of the tiger habitat due to massive*>* mining, tree felling, supply of bamboo to paper mills, diversion of*>* protected area habitat for ill conceived projects, etc. have been *>* controlled*>* to a great extent which could not have been possible but for the Hon'ble*>* Supreme Court's order. The report is also critical of the role of the CEC*>* alleging, impracticability, and illegality of its orders.*>* *>* The concept paper simply ignores what sound science tells us about*>* tiger conservation. It fails to note the deteriorating protection of the*>* tiger reserve, and the need to put in place alternative, effective*>* mechanisms to protect the core breeding populations of tigers in these*>* protected areas. " A Paradigm for Change " should have included a complete*>* revision in the process of protection and enforcement coupled with reform.*>* Though this is suggested in other chapters its absence in the concept is*>* perplexing. In fact, now the very concept of creating and protecting*>* inviolate tracts in Protected Areas will come into direct conflict with *>* the*>* recommendations of 'Co-existence with People'. The end result will be a*>* 'khichri " of recommendations that will fight each other and come to *>* nought.*>* Why on earth would people want to relocate when suggested recommendations*>* for " co-existence " can enhance their life 100 fold. And it can only be at*>* the cost of the tiger. We should not forget that there are criminal *>* elements*>* out there ready to kill the tigers and plunder their home under the cover*>* of livelihood related uses given a chance. The report of the CBI about*>* Sariska endorsed this view. Our mandate is about securing the future of *>* the*>* tiger and this can only be done in the framework of our laws. Our mandate*>* is therefore very clear.*>* *>* I reiterate that a certain minimum area has to be managed*>* exclusively in its natural form for the tiger. The area may be ½%, 1% or *>* 2%*>* or more of the geographical area of this country depending on the *>* political*>* mandate to do so. Let the principle of this be applied in the interest of*>* the tiger. Let us not forget that it is those areas which provide the *>* water,*>* food and ecological security of the country.*>* *>* I had prepared and sent you (i) a draft report (now final)*>* identifying specific problems of tiger conservation and giving specific*>* solutions; (ii) an action plan for co-existence of people (Annexure A and*>* B); (iii) objection to Research and Study Chapter (Annexure C); (iv)*>* objecting to the sub-cadre in wildlife as given the alternative of *>* creating*>* a panel of suitable officers (Annexure D); and (v) supporting note for*>* creation of Central Forest Protection Force (Annexure E). It is requested*>* that this letter along with the above stated enclosures may please be*>* recorded as my dissent note to the report. Since the complete draft of the*>* report and the executive summary have not so far been shared with me, I am*>* unable to give point by point input/view on the same, but the final draft *>* of*>* the concept paper and the chapter on co-existence reveals a complete*>* difference of opinion between me and the rest of the task force.*>* *>* Before parting, I am constrained to observe that sadly much of the report*>* has become focused on how to improve the life of people inside protected*>* areas rather than protecting tigers inside them. This people focus should*>* have been the job of another task force. The focus on the tiger has*>* therefore blurred since the priorities have shifted. In a way this is*>* tragic and if some of the recommendations are endorsed in policy they *>* could*>* have dangerous repercussions for the tiger.*>* *>* Best wishes,*>* *>* Yours sincerely,*>* *>* *>* (Valmik Thapar)*>* Member*>* *>* Task Force for Reviewing the Management of Tiger Reserves*>* *>* *>* *>* *>* *>* *>* *>* _____________*>* India-ej mailing list*>* India-ej at indialists.org <http://indialists.org/mailman/listinfo/india-ej>*>* http://indialists.org/mailman/listinfo/india-ej*>* Archives: http://indialists.org/pipermail/india-ej/*>* * -- Keya Acharya Journalist B 122 Century Park 48 Richmond Road Bangalore 560 025 India. ph: +91 80 25594597 fax:+91 80 2559 9745 email: keya.acharya at gmail.com <http://indialists.org/mailman/listinfo/india-ej>keyaa at vsnl.com <http://indialists.org/mailman/listinfo/india-ej> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.