Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTSubmission of the Madhya Pradesh government on section 20 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,barring accrual of rights“As you know, section 20 of the Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972 bars the accrual of any freshrights in, on or over the land comprised within thelimits of the area specified in the notificationissued under section 18, except by succession.This section has been erroneously interpreted asbanning any sale/purchase of landed property, aswell as the development of these properties, in thevillages situated within the notified tentativeboundaries of the proposed protected areas. Thesale/purchase of land and any change in the landuse are seen as the creation of new rights inviolation of this section. This interpretation,though erroneous, would not have caused anyproblems if we had been able to acquire all therights over these lands, as required by the Act,expeditiously. However, our inability to acquirethe private lands situated inside the proposedprotected areas for more than two decades, andforbidding people from selling their lands to otherbuyers as well, has resulted in tremendouseconomic and social difficulties for the people,and extreme discontent among people againstconservation itself. An extreme example of thesituation is seen in the Karera Great Indian BustardSanctuary in this state, where there have beencases in which people are unable to marry theirsons off as no one wants to give his daughter into avillage where no progress is possible. As a result ofthe ban on land transactions, and restrictionsplaced on the people, and the resulting hostility,the entire bustard population has been wiped outand there is a strong demand to denotify thesanctuary. A more or less similar situation prevailsin nearly all the other sanctuaries and proposednational parks of the state. The state is facing aspate of litigations on the issue as conservationextremists want the government to implementthis interpretation of the section rigidly, withoutbothering about the implications for the affectedpeople.As the government does not have thewherewithal to expeditiously acquire all the rightsin proposed protected areas, and we can ill affordto let popular discontent against conservationcontinue indefinitely, urgent steps are required tomend the situation. The problem can be easilysolved if people are allowed to exercise fullownership rights, including the right to sell andpurchase, over their properties, and the bar onaccrual of new rights such as grazing, is limited togovernment forests only. However, the current textdoes lend itself to the extreme interpretation thatwe are forced to follow now. The bar on accrual ofrights even on private lands may have appearedbenign at that time, as the framers of the law maynot have envisaged a situation in which hundredsof villages and thousands of acres of private landswould be affected by this ban. It may also have beeninserted to force people to opt for relocation.However, in the current context, it appearsextremely highhanded, in violation of thefundamental rights of a large and poor population,and is certainly counterproductive forconservation.Three alternative drafts for the amendment areenclosed herewith for your consideration. I hopeyou would be able to include it in the proposal foramendment already under consideration in theMinistry.”Letter by P B Gangopadhyay, principle chiefconservator of forests (wildlife), Madhya Pradesh toadditional director general of forests (wildlife),ministry of environment and forests, with copy toTiger Task Force, June 19, 2005in Madhya Pradesh, for instance, state authoritieshad put forward a proposal to delineate the parkboundary so as to exclude certain villages. Thisensured 319 sq km would be free from humanhabitation and completely protected. But it was notdone, as it would further fragment the reserve.In Melghat tiger reserve in Maharashtra, forinstance, this option was exercised. The governmentwas aware the buffer zone of the reserve had manyvillages. It was not possible to acquire the rights ofthese villages because of the sheer size of theoperation. People lived an illegal existence.Therefore, park authorities decided to opt for denotificationof an area of the sanctuary which couldbe then developed for villagers, while the core couldbe protected, without human interference, for tigers.But conservationists were unhappy about themove and took the matter to the state high court.Since then a desperate status quo persists. The stategovernment has informed the court, under pressurefrom the conservation lobby, that it will not use thearea for commercial purposes (interpreted as notallowing cutting of trees, other than for the basicsubsistence needs of people). The tribals continue tolive in destitution, their poverty driving them to usethe resources of the tiger reserve and their anger108 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:
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 81 and 82: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?