Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTsuggested certain indicative activities (see table:Indicative activities under IEDP). Evaluations of theproject have reported that the project focused onpurchasing assets that would supposedly weanpeople away from the forests. The project did notrealise that simply purchasing tools or machines notdependent directly on the forest for inputs did notmean people would take to them, especially if theycould not afford to use them. There were cases ofpeople receiving LPG gas connections they promptlysold off to the market.Where the project did invest in basics, resultsshowed up. Thus, biogas plants set up in Kalakad-Mundanthurai tiger reserve in Tamil Nadu helpedreduce locals’ dependence on firewood. But wherebiogas plants were built in water-scarce areas, thestrategy failed. Though the forest department wasunable to create markets for products they hadhelped people grow in Periyar tiger reserve in Kerala,they were able to reduce the burden of debt onpeople by paying off their loans. In Buxa tiger reservein West Bengal, villagers who once fought with forestofficials over crop depredation, began cooperatingwith the department once they saw cropcompensations coming in relatively more timely.The work boomeranged wherever the projectworked in exclusion. In Ranthambhore, for instance,a wall was built to seclude villagers and preventthem from grazing livestock in the park. Animosityrose and friction led to violence. The wall wasbroken down at several places and on July 21, 2000,the forest guards even resorted to firing 17 roundsduring a clash with 10 villagers of Uliana, who werefound grazing a herd of some 150 buffaloes in thecore area of the park. The conflicts only got deeper. 18Line departments vs forest departmentThe key weakness of the project was not what it did,but how it did it. The project created parallelinstitutions — the ecodevelopment committees — inthe villages. It did not work with existing deliverymechanisms in the village, the panchayats and otherline departments of programme delivery. This meantthe forest department had to invest personnel tocreate a parallel structure for village development.Also, a traditionally antagonistic forest departmenthad to rebuild its relationships with villagers. Wheresenior forest officers took the lead and spent time inthe field, things were different. Kerala’s Periyar tigerreserve and Pench tiger reserve in Madhya Pradeshunder the India Ecodevelopment Project, and TamilNadu’s Kalakad-Munduntharai tiger reserve underFREEP, are considered the better instances ofecodevelopment programmes.Because of this, some experts believe thatturning the forest department away from its mainduty — protection — and involving it in what areINDICATIVE ACTIVITIES UNDER IEDPCrop protection measures Construction of stone walls,energised fences etcFuelwood, fodder and joint Small-scale village-based plotsforestry managementof plantations and fodderConstruction of water harvesting Micro-irrigation schemes,structures and irrigation systems checkdams, tube wells,Small-scale crop and agricultureactivitiesSmall-scale farm-based andnon-farm based alternativeincome generationBiomass substitutionImproved planting stock,agronomic practices, creditand marketing to improveproductivityBee keeping, sericulture, lacproduction, tailoring,improving livestockImproved stoves, biogasplants, solar cookersSource: Anon 1996, India Ecodevelopment Project, Project Report 1996,World Bankstandard rural development line departmentfunctions is not a good idea. Understaffed already,and untrained to manage people, the forestdepartment should be left to do its core function.Otherwise, firstly, the forest suffers as the role of theprotector changes character. Secondly, forestofficials not trained in general to handle suchsituations find it difficult to implement projects.Conservation scientist Ullas Karanth, in hissuggestions to the Tiger Task Force, says, “There isample evidence that the original mission-focus of theforest department to protect tigers and their habitatssingle-mindedly (which was evident between 1970-1990) has been almost lost. And this is the singlebiggest cause of collapse of protection around mostof India’s wildlife areas and tiger reserves. One of themost critical needs now is to delink all the ongoingand proposed ‘ecodevelopment projects’ (which areessentially rural development activities) from theambit of forest department and entrust it to otherexisting rural development agencies or create aspecialised agency for this purpose. The forestdepartments should refocus their attention on theircore task: protecting nature reserves.” 19But there is also the counter-view that involvingthe forest department is essential as it builds therelationship of the people with the park. Suchinvolvement helps train the department to rework itsentire forestry strategy. Also, association betweenpeople and the department helps reduce antagonism.Very often, it has been seen that the goodwillgenerated by the department by creating communityassets has been used to garner support from thepeople. This can only be done if the developmentalactivities flow through the department. It can helppeople realise that the benefits and developmentalgains they are making, are due to the existence of126 The way ahead