Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■Fringe villagesA profile of the people on the fringe of the forestand inside each park:BuxaAccording to the 1991 census, 15,608 peopleinhabit forest villages and fixed demand holdingswithin the protected area. In 1996, according to aWorld Bank project report, there were 37 forestvillages inside the reserve’s boundaries, and eightwithin the park. The report also mentions 44revenue villages, with a population of 84,648 (1991census). The project decided to target 36,000 ofthese for ecodevelopment.RanthambhoreIn 1996, the national consultants to IndiaEcodevelopment Project identified 211,695 peoplewithin 10 km of the reserve to be included in theproject. But the project authorities then reduced thenumbers they wanted to work with to 64,000.Before this, Worldwide Fund for Nature-India(1994) had identified 85,000 people, in 85 villages,for possible inclusion in ecodevelopmentactivities. The project realised that it would alsohave to deal with major urban settlements nearreserve boundaries, as in the cases of SawaiMadhopur, Khandar and Karauli (combinedpopulation of 82,000).GirOver 70,000 people were surveyed to be living inthe intended project area during the 1981 census.The protected area authorities identified apopulation of 72,000 within a two-km radius ofpark boundaries, in 97 revenue villages, forparticipation in ecodevelopment. Within the parkitself, 54 pastoral settlements or 'nesses' inhabitedby 2,540 Maldharis; 14 forest villages with apopulation of 4,500 residents including 239 Siddis,a scheduled tribe of African origin; and threetemple complexes occupied by 65 people, wereidentified.NagarholeThe total population in the project area was 72,652as per the 1981 census. Within a five-km radius ofthe boundary, the protected area authoritiesidentified a population of 66,507 in 96 revenuevillages, for participation in project activities.PalamauThree villages were recorded in the core zone.According to the 1991 census data, 30,795 people,in 102 villages, were located within legallyexcluded enclaves in the sanctuary’s buffer area.Another 89 villages within a five-km radius of thesanctuary were selected to participate inecodevelopment activities, to give a totalpopulation of 75,000 targeted for this project.PenchThe 1981 census counted 50,000 people in theintended project area (99 revenue villages).Findings from the participatory research carriedout in over 10 villages around the national parksuggest that 80 per cent of families suffered fromvarying degrees of poverty, and that most of thesefamilies belong to scheduled tribes.PeriyarWhile the protected area authorities and thenational consultants (Indian Institute of PublicAdministration) identified a population of225,000 according to the 1981 census within twokm of the reserve for inclusion in the project. TheBank suggested that the project planners need toreduce the target population to a more manageablesize. A revised target population of 58,144 in theselected villages within the two-km radius waschosen.department protect the forest: among other ways, byhelping department frontline staff in patrolling;gathering intelligence on poaching; preventing cattlefrom grazing in parks, and whatever else the forestdepartment suggested. In practice, all these couldhappen only after mutual agreement among allstakeholders.Each ecodevelopment committee member wasallocated Rs 10,000 against which he or she wouldthen contribute 25 per cent of the costs, or Rs 2,500.The money could then be used to invest in differentschemes and productive assets, either at individuallevels or at community basis. 12 The money couldthen generate, as the World Bank and thegovernment put it, livelihoods reducing the impactof people on the forest. 13 On its part, the forestdepartment would improve its functioning, andensure better protection of parks: project fundsallowed purchase and construction of infrastructureand better equipment for park officers and staff(computers, boats, Geographical InformationSystems software, and vehicles).Ecodevelopment as envisaged earlierThe idea of ecodevelopment entered conservationdiscourse in India in 1983, when the Indian BoardThe way ahead 123
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTfor Wildlife (now the National Board for Wildlife) setup the Task Force on Public Support for WildlifeConservation. Headed by politician MadhavraoScindia, the task force broke new ground byrecommending the creation of ‘Special Areas forEcodevelopment’. These were to be focus areas onthe fringes of parks, where multiple use of forests andland would be allowed. The task force recommendedthat, in these areas, there would be greater inputs ona per capita basis for development based upon a firmconservation bias. 14 The task force recognised thatfor the people living in the forested regions (fringesof protected areas) no other employment alternativeexisted. As people were completely dependent uponagriculture and cattle-raising on marginal lands, thetask force recommended that ecodevelopmentshould involve working on soil conservation,afforestation, forestry practices such as silviculture,improving dry farming techniques, micro-minorirrigation, pasture and fodder development andimproved animal husbandry and energy alternatives.The task force at the time had recognised that anumber of line departments would need to beinvolved in work that was primarily a specialisedform of sustainable rural development. But, itrecommended that a nodal agency in the thendepartment of environment be created to monitorwork. The work at the district level, the task forcerecommended, should be implemented andcoordinated by a body of officers drawn fromdifferent departments at that level.Also, it asked that employment in both wildlifereserves and the Special Areas for Ecodevelopmentbe preferentially offered to local communities to usetheir expertise as well as create new vistas oflivelihoods for them, based on forests and forestedareas.The 1983 task force also acknowledged this wasalso the only way to conserve India’s forests andwildlife, and to keep people involved at all possiblelevels.The experience of ecodevelopmentThe total cost of the India Ecodevelopment Projectover seven years was Rs 288 crore, including theseven per cent (roughly, Rs 20 crore) contribution bypeople. The project, in turn, was expected to investRs 118.72 crore on people-oriented activities (seetable: India ecodevelopment project).But what is interesting to note is the fact that thefunds were not spent till very late in the project. Thisobviously affected the efficacy of the project.It must be recognised that ecodevelopmentbrought in as much money in six years for seven tigerreserves as Project Tiger had spent on all the 28 tigerreserves in three decades. The officials and thedepartment obviously were incapable of spendingsuch resources without resorting to quick-fixexpenditures towards the end of the project. 15ImplementationWherever the decision-making remained unilateralat the behest of the forest department, the attemptsquickly failed. Wherever they were implemented inthe right spirit, the schemes did pick up theeconomic baselines of the villages. So, in the case ofNagarhole national park in Karnataka, where largescalediscrepancies in disbursement were alsoinvestigated, people landed up with undesired assetsthey promptly disposed off for easy money. Stovesand inferior quality pots were distributed. Peoplewere trained to become nurses and drivers in placeswhich had no hospitals or cars. 16In Buxa tiger reserve, West Bengal, eachecodevelopment committee member was allocatedRs 10,000. But on the forest department’s advice, allINDIA ECODEVELOPMENT PROJECTINVESTMENT COST (IDA + GEF + GOI), ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND BUDGET (RS LAKH)Civil Vehicle/ Village Consultants' Proj Prep of PPF Unallocated Totalworks material ecodev services mgt travel future projBuxa 849.01 139.60 1,610.99 271.84 76.81 - 7.41 - 2,955.66Gir 415.23 131.20 2,317.56 383.02 34.45 41.64 - - 3,323.10Nagarahole 924.02 229.12 1,697.84 297.68 87.68 - - - 3,236.34Palamau 113.67 90.12 835.94 61.81 13.10 10.00 - - 1,124.64Pench 430.05 108.89 1,607.82 162.02 29.02 39.73 - - 2,377.53Periyar 702.95 286.18 871.58 313.70 28.47 30.00 - - 2,232.88Ranthambhore 297.83 107.35 1,474.58 172.55 10.29 - - - 2,062.60PTO - 58.00 - 538.00 4.00 229.00 4.13 251.18 1,084.31Total 3,732.76 1,150.46 10,416.31 2,200.62 283.82 350.37 11.54 251.18 18,397.06Source: World Bank 2002, aide memoire, Annexure 3, budget and expenditures, November, mimeo124 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:
Page 83 and 84: ■ 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 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?