Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■these rights speedily before the reserve is declared.The law is based on the premise that whenever anarea will be declared as protected for wildlife speciesor conservation, it will be done only once thegovernment compensates inhabitants of the land andagrees on a ‘settlement’ with people. This assumesthe process will be speedily done so that, in themeantime, no new rights will be created — no newpeople will be allowed to settle on the land or use itsresources — other than those that lived there whenthe process of notification began.In other words, like in any other land acquisitionmatter, the law provides that the rights of people wholive on these lands, which the state needs to acquirefor public purposes, have to be verified andcompensated. They cannot be extinguished ornegated. The law does provide for the fact that theserights, once determined, can be allowed inconsultation with wildlife authorities in certain areas— sanctuaries, not national parks.Perfect in law, imperfect in lifeThe law is straightforward. But the implementationof the law has been negligent, to say the least.In fact, there has hardly been any settlement ofrights in India’s protected areas. In its 1989 survey ofprotected areas on the country, a report compiled bythe Indian Institute of Public Administration foundthat only 40 per cent of the national parks thatresponded to its survey, and only 8 per cent of the209 sanctuaries that responded, had completed theirlegal procedures. 9 In tiger reserves, two reserves havebeen formally notified as national parks.The problem is compounded by the fact that tillthe 1991 amendment to the Wildlife (Protection)Act,1972, a sanctuary could be notified without therights being determined. Therefore, in notifiedsanctuaries created in the period 1973-1991, therights would not have been determined or settled.Even as the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 wasimplemented, what got overlooked was the originalstatutory defect in the law: the fact that a sanctuarycould be declared immediately even if the rightsweren’t settled.The 2003 amendment to the Wildlife (Protection)Act, 1972 is the latest attempt to rectify this defect. Ithas tried to do so in the following way:1. The regulatory regime was to apply even thoughthe final notification, under section 18A(1), had notbeen completed.2. Till rights were settled, the state had to makealternative arrangements for fuel, fodder and minorforest produce for people living in areas declared as aprotected area (section 18a (2)).3. The settlement process was supported by aprocess in which settlement personnel were to beappointed within 30 days for both past and futurenotifications to declare a sanctuary (section 18 B).4. The settlement was to be completed within 2years (section 25A(1)).5. The settlement process would not lapse if notcompleted in 2 years (section 25A (2)).But these amendments failed to solve problems:Unfortunately, the situation on the ground worsened.Settlements did not take place, and the governmentdid not make provisions for fuel, fodder andforest produce. But the enforcement regime wasstrengthened without these safeguards.What is shocking is that, till date, very fewprotected areas have completed the process ofrecording the rights of people, let alone completingthe process of acquisition of those rights andcompensating people who live there. The practicehas been to turn all people living within protectedareas into outsiders and illegal users of theirown lands. In the name of conservation, whathas been carried out is a completely illegal andunconstitutional land acquisition programme.In fact, by not even recording the rights of peoplein these areas the authorities are in violation of theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.In 1997, hearing a case filed by the WorldwideFund for Nature, the Supreme Court (writ petition no337/95) ordered all state governments to issue aproclamation asking for claims to be filed and tocomplete the process of determination of rights andacquisition of those rights within one year. For a fewmonths after this order, state governments furiouslyissued orders, leading to even more tension andconfusion.Then, many states such as Madhya Pradeshresponded to the Supreme Court saying that they hadneither the finances nor the land for relocation.States also told the Union ministry of environmentand forests that more than Rs 600 crore would beneeded to settle the rights of people and they did nothave these resources. The case is ongoing.What happens if rights are not determined?Currently, the situation is that people live in theselands. Their rights have not been settled, but arebeing extinguished by different agencies interestedin conservation. Can this be allowed? What arethe rights of people over the use of resources, inthe absence of their rights being finally decided?The law is clear that the rights continue tillthey are expunged through a formal process ofcompensation.It is worth repeating here section 18a (2) of the2003 amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972. Explicitly, it says that after the government hasThe way ahead 105