Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■and accepted, by the erstwhile colonial government.When these lands were later notified as sanctuariesor national parks, the customary and traditionalrights remained unrecorded.What happens in such a situation? At a publichearing organised by the National Forum for ForestPeople and Forest Workers in April 2005, ittranspired that inside the Buxa tiger reserve of WestBengal, there were an estimated 37 forest villagesand five hamlets, habitations set up by the colonialgovernment in the late 19 th century for labour inforest operations. In return for settlement rights andrights over forest produce, the communities hadto provide their labour, also known as begar. Whenthe Buxa reserve was declared, employmentopportunities dried up. But villagers still do not havelegal ownership over homesteads or agricultural landand are denied their customary rights to collect forestproduce. 5 How can the objectives of conservation beserved by turning people into trespassers in theirown lands, as has happened here?The Supreme Court mattersThe Supreme Court today plays a critical role inensuring environmental protection and conservationin the country. It has directed to stop mining, habitatdestruction and improve protection in the interest ofreserves over the years.In February 2000, the amicus curiae (in theomnibus forest case ongoing in the Supreme Court),filed an application seeking clarification if an earlierorder of the Supreme Court — the apex Court hadpassed it in 1996; it pertained to a ban againstremoval of fallen or dry standing trees — applied toprotected areas as well. The application pertained tocommercial felling of trees in protected areas by theKarnataka state forest department. The apex Court, inits order dated February 14, 2000, then ordered that“in the meantime, we restrain the respondents fromordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying orwind-fallen trees, driftwood and grasses etc from thenational park or game sanctuary or forest”.This order led to a number of directions from theSupreme Court:● On February 28, 2000 it clarified this ban was notfor forests, but only for protected areas.● On April 3, 2000 in response to a representationreceived from the state of Rajasthan, the Courtfurther clarified that the order “will have noapplication in so far as plucking and collection oftendu leaves is concerned”,● On May 10, 2001 it noted that “the removal offorest produce such as leaves, harra, sal seeds,mahua flowers and mahua seeds from forestother than national parks and sanctuaries is notprohibited”.●In February 2002 it clarified that “the order ofthis Court prohibiting cutting of trees does notapply to bamboo including cane, which reallybelong to the grass family, other than those innational parks and sanctuaries. In other words,no bamboo including cane in national parksand sanctuaries can be cut but the same can becut elsewhere.” 6On October 20, 2003, the Union ministry ofenvironment and forests wrote a letter to all chiefsecretaries. The letter detailed guidelines fordiversion of forest land for non-forest purposesunder the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It said theministry had approved certain modifications for thediversion of land under the act; one of these was:“Para 1.2 (iii) now clarifies that rights andconcessions cannot be enjoyed in the protected areasin view of the orders of the Supreme Court dated14.2.2000 restraining removal of dead, diseased,dying or wind-fallen trees, drift wood and grasses etcfrom any national park or sanctuary”. 7It is important to note that para 1.2 (iii) of therules of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, referredto in the ministry letter, pertains to the harvesting offodder grasses and legumes which grow naturally inforest areas. The para says the removal of thesegrasses will not require approval of the centralgovernment. This Act, in fact, has nothing to do withthe rights and privileges of people living withinprotected areas, which are governed by the IndianWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.On July 2, 2004, the Central EmpoweredCommittee — set up the Supreme Court to assist it inall forestry matters — wrote to all state governmentsdrawing attention to the fact that a number ofinstances had come to its notice, of prohibitedactivities occurring within protected areas. Theseactivities, the Central Empowered Committee said inits letter, were happening without the prior approvalof the Supreme Court and should be stopped.The list of prohibited activities mentioned in theletter included felling of trees and bamboo, cutting ofgrass and collection of minor forest produce. TheCentral Empowered Committee warned the states to“ensure strict compliance of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt’s order so that none of the prohibited activitiesare allowed to be undertaken either by the projectauthorities or the forest department; prior permissionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be obtainedbefore undertaking them”.Impact on conservationThe result has been that state governments haverushed to stop all use of minor forest produce andcollection of grass from protected areas. The TaskForce during its visits to different states wasThe way ahead 101