Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■Let us be clear. The entire effort of the SupremeCourt, investing its valuable time and commitment,is to safeguard the protected areas of the countryfrom commercial and illegal uses. But it iscompletely inexplicable how the Union ministry ofenvironment and forests issued the guideline which,in effect, expunged all rights and concessions ofpeople in protected areas, using moreover aprovision of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. TheCentral Empowered Committee, in its letter to states,has included in the list of prohibited activitiescutting of grass and collection of minor forestproduce. At no stage has it been clarified if this hasbeen done after rights have been settled oralternatives made available to poor people.The fact is that this interpretation of the law byfirst the ministry and then the committee has, in fact,cost the country’s conservation efforts dearly. Theanger of people against conservation has onlyworsened and will make protection even moredifficult.The reality is that since people live in thesereserves and use resources, conservation policy hasdriven the process underground. This has worked tothe detriment of the forest as well as the people. Forinstance, in Sariska in Rajasthan, villagers used totraditionally graze their cattle inside the park and theforest department used to issue receipts to people forusing the park. In this way, the authorities could‘manage’ and ‘regulate’ use. But in 1982, when it wasdecided Sariska would be declared a national park,the forest department stopped collecting grazing fees.The idea was that if the fee was not charged, peoplecould not claim grazing rights and it would be easierto notify the area as a national park. The fact is thatthe final notification for the national park is still inabeyance and grazing continues, but in an illegal,uncontrolled and destructive way. 11Barring rights to propertyUnder section 20 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972 there is a provision; rather innocuouslyworded, it is turning out to be devastating for peopleliving in protected areas whose rights have not beensettled.The provision says that after notification underSection 18 (intention to declare), “no rights shall beacquired in, on or over the land comprised withinthe limits of the area specified in such notification,except by succession, testamentary or interstate.”This provision could have been inserted to ensurethat during the short period in which governmentwould settle the rights of people in the protectedareas, no new settlers would emerge in order to reapthe benefits of settlement.But because the settlement of rights has nevertaken place, and is quite likely never to take place,the situation for people living within reserves is suchthat even owning private revenue land has becomeunbearable. The principle chief conservator offorests, Madhya Pradesh, has drawn the attention ofthe Union ministry of environment and forests of theneed for an urgent review and revision in thisprovision (see box: Submission of the MadhyaPradesh government on section 20 of the Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972, barring accrual of rights). Inhis submission, it is pointed out conditions havebecome terrible for local people, in turn generatingintense hatred for the wild animals.In the Karera Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary inMadhya Pradesh, for instance, there have been caseswhere people are unable to get their sons married,because no one wants to give his daughter into avillage where no progress is possible. As a result ofthe ban on land transactions here, restrictions placedand the resulting hostility, the entire bustardpopulation has been wiped out. Now there is a strongdemand to denotify the sanctuary, says thesubmission.It is important to note here that a large number ofpeople who live within the protected reserves live onrevenue land, which is privately owned. But whilethe law provides that the rights should be acquired,this has not been done. This selective use ofprovisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, ismaking people enemies of conservation.Is de-notification an option?If people cannot be relocated from the protectedareas, is it possible to denotify areas of humansettlement so that these can be excluded fromreserves? This would improve protection within thereserve and meet the conservation objectives ofwildlife managers, who see no alternative but toexclude people to save the wild animals.There is a fear that this approach can be used todivert protected areas, so the 2003 amendment to theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has made the processextremely cumbersome and centralised. It haslegislated that “no alterations of the boundary of thesanctuary or national park shall be made by the stategovernment except on the recommendation of thenational board (National Board of Wildlife)”. In 2000and again in 2004, the Supreme Court furthertightened this provision, directing “no de-reservationof forests/sanctuaries/national parks shall beeffected”.This makes it even more difficult for stategovernments to recognise the fact that if they cannotsettle the rights of people and cannot relocate them,they could de-notify areas of human settlementwithin a protected area. In Bandhavgarh tiger reserveThe way ahead 107