Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■that began in 1996. Both projects ran with partfundingand part-grants from the World Bank and theGlobal Environment Facility.The India Ecodevelopment Project had thefollowing basic objectives: 91. Improve protected areas management: This wasto be done to strengthen forest departmentcapacities and increase people’s participation inpark management.2. Village ecodevelopment: This was aimed atreducing negative impacts of ‘local people’ onparks and vice versa. This asked for participatorymicroplanning of activities at the village level, tohelp villages and the forest department decide ona set of reciprocal promises. The forestdepartment would provide alternativelivelihoods and the people would commit tohelp the department in better managing andprotecting the forest. Ecodevelopment alsomeant so-called special programmes, includingthe ‘option’ of voluntary relocation and other‘investments’ to benefit people and biodiversity.3. Generate support for park management andecodevelopment: The project also focussed onenvironmental education and visitormanagement at the parks. More importantly, itpromised funds for impact monitoring and goalorientedecological and social science research.When this project was in preparation in 1991-1992,the Forestry Research Education and ExtensionProject’s ecodevelopment work was taken as amodel. The India Ecodevelopment Project took oneand-ahalf years, and numerous consultations, tocome into being. The Union government hired theIndian Institute of Planning and Administration,New Delhi, to chalk out the ‘indicative plan’, aproposal submitted by the government to the WorldBank to launch formal negotiations, which thedepartment of economic affairs took up with theBank in 1994.The project initially began with eight sites inmind. The one to be finally rejected was Simlipal inOrissa, for the state government had relocatedvillages even as the project was being planned andthe Bank did not want to be associated with a sitethat had relocated people. The government finallyselected and proposed seven sites: all but two weretiger reserves — Gir national park and sanctuary inGujarat and the Nagarhole national park in Karnataka(see map: The India Ecodevelopment Project). Thelatter was later on added to the Bandipur tigerreserve.What is interesting is the way the projectdelineated the idea of fringe. Usually, the impact of afringe radiates out from a park periphery till itSOURCE OF FUNDS FORINDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECTFunding agency US $ (million) Per centInternational Development Agency 28.00 42GEF Trust 20.00 30Project beneficiaries 4.59 7State government 9.06 13Union government 5.36 8Total (for 28 reserves) 67.00 100Source: Anon 1996, Staff Appraisal Report, World Bank, Washingtonbecomes negligible. But even as the projectproponents and the government discussed the limitof the ‘fringe’, what ultimately came to be understoodas a fringe was via a random idea of what waspractical rather than what was necessary. So, in thecase of the Buxa tiger reserve in West Bengal, forinstance, even though the project was aware of125,601 scheduled tribe people working in thesurrounding tea gardens, it finally excluded them. 10Similarly, in Nagarhole national park in Karnataka,the population in the project area was 72,652 (as perthe 1981 census), but the project identified only66,507 people to work with. 11 In other parks, too,people were left out for reasons of ‘practicality’.The project’s funds came from five primarysources (see table: Source of funds for IndiaEcodevelopment Project). At the same time, ‘ projectbeneficiaries’, as people were referred to in theproject framework, had to contribute as well to theproject cost. The idea was to bring in people’s stakein the project, and therefore into conservation, byasking them to pitch in roughly seven per cent ofwhat it would it would cost to launch activitiesunder the project. While this may look minimal ascompared to the overall costs, it meant substantialcontribution on the part of the people. The moneywas to be spent under various heads.In all, the India Ecodevelopment Project decidedto consider 3,715 villages spread around the sevenparks (see box: Fringe villages): it would involve164,786 families and a population of 823,928. Again,one must emphasise this was not the total populationon the fringe of the parks selected as project sites;this was the segment the project decided it couldafford to work with.The idea of ecodevelopmentThe key objective of the project was to reduce thenegative impacts of ‘local people’ on protected areasby providing alternative sources of firewood andincome.The way ahead 121
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTTHE INDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITESRanthambhore tiger reserve1,035 sq km64,000 Rs 20.63 crore4 villages in nationalpark, 25 in sanctuaryBuxa tiger reserve761 sq km36,000 Rs 29.56 crore37 forest villages in the reserve, nosettlement in national parkRAJASTHANGUJARATGir national park andsanctuary1,412 sq km72,000 Rs 33.23 crore54 hamlets innational park,3 temple complexes, 14forest villagesMADHYA PRADESHMAHARASHTRAKARNATAKAKERALAJHARKHANDPalamau tiger reserve1,026 sq km75,000 Rs 11.25 crore3 forest villages,102 villages in enclavesPench tiger reserve758 sq km48,000 Rs 23.78 croreNo settlementNagarhole national park643 sq km70,000 Rs 32.37 crore54 tribal settlementsPeriyar tiger reserve777 sq km62,000 Rs 22.33 sq km3 tribal settlements,1 agricultural settlementArea (sq km) Number of beneficiaries Release of fund to parks (Rs crore) (up to 2002-03)Source: World Bank 2002, aide memoire, Annexure 3 budget and expenditure, November, mimeoAdministratively, the project went on to create aparallel set of village-level bodies called the villageecodevelopment committees. These consist ofvillagers along with a forester or guard as theofficiating secretary. The president of the committeeis elected from among the committee members. Thecommittee was meant to sit with the department anda non-governmental organisation and make amicroplan of all activities it would undertake overthe project period. In return for the forest departmentproviding alternative livelihoods using projectresources, people reciprocally promised to help the122 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:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78:
Page 81 and 82: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 91 and 92: Wildlife research has been facing s
Page 99: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 122: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 126 and 127: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 142: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 151: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 156 and 157: 04Action plan for changeKey recomme
Page 164 and 165: 05References
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?