Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT1.1 Conserving the tigerPhase one: 1972-1980In the early 1970s, international concern about thestate of the Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)reached a fever pitch. In 1969, the IUCN or WorldConservation Union held its general assembly inDelhi. Based on an assessment by forester K SSankhala, the assembly called for a moratorium ontiger killings and asked for urgent action to protectthe species. As a sequel to this appeal, the IndianBoard for Wildlife initiated action for protection andasked states to ban tiger hunting for five years.But the international community was notconvinced. In 1972 Guy Mountfort, an influentialtrustee of the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), met(then) prime minister Indira Gandhi, urging her tosave the species from extinction. Well known for anabiding concern on environmental and conservationmatters, the prime minister set up a group ofspecialists to study the situation and create a plan forthe future. Chaired by Karan Singh, a keenconservationist and currently a Rajya Sabha member,this task force submitted its report in August 1972. Soemerged the blueprint for India’s tiger conservationprogramme: Project Tiger, as it came to be known. 1Initially, Project Tiger was conceived for sixyears — April 1973 to March 1979. Its objective was“to ensure the maintenance of a viable population ofthe tiger in India and to preserve, for all times, suchareas as part of our national heritage for the benefit,education and enjoyment of future generations”.After due deliberation, the task force decided tobegin with eight viable reserves representingdifferent ecosystems where the tiger could beprotected in perpetuity. These were:1. Manas, Assam: eastern Himalayan foothills, withsemi-evergreen to evergreen forests and heavyrainfall;2. Palamau, Bihar (now in Jharkhand): easternpeninsular region, with sal and bamboo forests;3. Simlipal, Orissa: Mahanadi basin, with moistmiscellaneous forests;4. Corbett, Uttar Pradesh (now in Uttaranchal):central foothills of the Himalaya, with sal as thepredominant species;5. Ranthambhore, Rajasthan: Junction of Aravalliand Vindhya, with dry deciduous open forests;6. Kanha, Madhya Pradesh: central peninsularIndia, with sal and miscellaneous forests;7. Melghat, Maharashtra: southern offshoot ofSatpura, with deciduous forests dominated byteak and bamboo; and8. Bandipur, Karnataka: miscellaneous forests ofthe Western Ghats.The mangove forest of Sundarban was added whenthe project was formally launched and these becamethe first nine tiger reserves in the country. Theforeign advisors from the World Conservation Unionsuggested to the task force that “the best method ofprotection of the tiger is to have large areas of at least2,000 square kilometres (sq km), with similarcontiguous areas so that a viable population of about300 tigers in each such area can be maintained”.Interestingly, the advisors also said that the “idea ofcontinuous blocks of 2,000 sq km is to rotate suchunits by opening one of the units for periodiccontrolled shooting”.The task force, however, demonstrated politicalrealism in creating reserves with an average size of1,500 sq km, and embedding them within alreadyprotected reserve forests; the premise was theseforests would provide enough space for tigers toroam. The management plan the task force suggestedwas that each reserve would have a ‘core’ for tigers tobreed and live undisturbed in, and a ‘buffer zone’where limited human activity would be allowed.In the ‘core’ — a sanctum sanctorum of at least300 sq km — no felling, grazing or movement ofhumans, except for matters related to reservemanagement, would be permitted. Said the task forcein this respect: “…forms of human disturbance, suchas commercial felling, collection of minor forestproduce, mining, excessive traffic, heavy grazing bydomestic livestock are clearly detrimental and mustbe phased out for complete elimination.”Also, the task force was conscious thatmaintaining a genetically viable population of tigerswould require larger areas than the reserves and theircontiguous forests provided. The members stronglyruled against any operation to hold tiger populationsat artificially high levels by using methods likehabitat modification or artificial breeding. Theybelieved, instead, that the reserves would provide abreeding nucleus from which surplus animals coulddisperse into surrounding habitats.The 1972 report was remarkable. It presented anexhaustive blueprint: management systems, theadministrative framework and legal provisions. It setout measures to counter poaching and to makeenforcement more effective. It listed equipmentrequired to manage reserves effectively. In so doing,it inaugurated a clear-sighted beginning for India’stiger conservation programme.2 The assessment