Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTdeclared its intention to declare an area a nationalpark or sanctuary and before the rights of affectedpeople are finally settled, “the state government shallmake alternative arrangements required for makingavailable fuel, fodder and other forest produce to thepersons affected, in terms of their rights as per thegovernment records”.In other words, the ground reality is that thegovernment has to provide for the “needs” of peopleif it declares any area as a sanctuary or national parkor any other protected reserve — till the rights havebeen compensated. At the same time, the groundreality is that it does not. So, a situation gets createdin which a double negligence occurs: on the onehand, rights that ought to be settled by law are notsettled; instead they keep getting expunged.Institutions whose intention is to protect thereserves — the Union ministry of environment andforests, or the Central Empowered Committee —seem to have done nothing to ensure that, whenrights are taken away by their fiat, alternatives areprovided.There seems to now exist two proceduralregimes, and institutions seem to pick one or theother, not tackling the inherited ambiguities causedby the original defect in the law:● Rights are settled, the sanctuary is notified andall prohibitions come into force;● Rights are not settled, but the sanctuary ornational park exists; so, all prohibitions comeinto force but none of the safeguards.Either way, people are the losers. Either way,conservation is jeopardised.What is being done?In November 4, 2004, the Central EmpoweredCommittee filed an interim report for theclarification of the Supreme Court order of February14, 2000 (in which it had banned the removal of deadtrees etc from national parks and sanctuaries). In thisreport, the committee recommended the apex Courtclarify the following:● What is allowed for the better management ofparks — like firelines, maintenance of fairweather roads, habitat improvement?●●What is prohibited in a protected area?Can exemption be given for small public utilityprojects of non-commercial nature?The key recommendation that concerns therights of people is that the committee includesremoval of bamboo or grasses in the list ofprohibitions. Without provision of alternatives, thisimpinges on people’s fodder requirements. Equally,it is silent on the extraction of minor forest produceby people.A particularly vexed questionThe law, as interpreted by conservationists, providesthat people living in and around the protected areacan collect and remove forest produce, but only tomeet bona fide needs. The problem is that no one hasever defined what “bona fide needs” mean. In otherwords, if poor tribals in the Nagarhole national parkin Karnataka collect honey and sell it for theirsubsistence needs, would this constitute a “bonafide” need?This issue was taken up by the deputyconservator of forests of the Chamarajanagar range inKarnataka — where the Bilirangan temple sanctuaryis located — with his superior officer, in response tothe order banning collection of minor forest produceby Soliga tribal cooperative societies existing there.The matter, he said, would have been very simple tointerpret if the definition of “commercial collection”and “personal bona fide use” was defined in theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 or the rules. Theissues, as he elaborated, are:●Soliga are a forest tribe, who migrated fromNilgiri centuries ago and settled with theforests. They were allowed to practice shiftingcultivation in lieu of which they were engaged aslabour in various forestry operations. As a result,they do not own land. Collection of minor forestproduce for their cooperative society is their onlysource of income. In other words, says thedeputy conservator, for the Soliga this collectionserves subsistence needs only.● Commercial exploitation then could beunderstood, he says, in terms of the quantity ofproduce collected per ha of forests. In this case,can collection of 10 kg of gooseberry or 442 gmsof honey per ha be termed as commercial?Moreover, banning the collection of minor forestproduce will destroy the relationship that hasdeveloped between the Soliga and forests andsustainable extraction of these resources.In addition, he admits, the ban is unlikely to beeffective. The first difficulty will be in finding whichSoliga is collecting, or has collected, minor forestproduce for the purpose of trade. If a Soliga is foundwith 10 kg of gooseberry or five kg of honey, can it besaid what use it is for, personal or commercial? Infact where there has been a ban, the experiencehas been that extraction continues, without anysafeguards. 10 But the ban in the sanctuary continues.Extraction continues, but illegally, in a moreunsustainable fashion. Moreover, it inevitably leadsto more harassment of tribals and corruption.The problem is that these provisions — used,interpreted and misinterpreted, with good intentions— are leading to tremendous harassment of people.106 The way ahead
Page 2 and 3:
THE REPORT OF THE TIGER TASK FORCEJ
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsIntroductionExecutive summa
Page 6 and 7:
IntroductionThe Tiger Task Force wa
Page 8 and 9:
TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 10 and 11:
Page 13:
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 16:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 52:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 67: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 70 and 71: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 78: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 91 and 92: Wildlife research has been facing s
Page 156 and 157: 04Action plan for changeKey recomme
Page 164 and 165: 05References
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
show all

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?