Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■forests. A disconnect between the two could lead todevelopment without any rewards being ploughedback to the forests.The options for the futureVishwas Sawarkar, member of the Expert Committeefor Monitoring and Evaluation of Tiger Reserves, setup by the Union government, states it well: “It is…time now to think and reorder and as necessarycombine our traditional and sectoral ruraldevelopment programmes in at least the forestedrural sector on the lines of the ecodevelopmentprogramme. Ecodevelopment conforms to allobjectives of the traditional rural development andmuch more in the sense that it does not believe in thepopular adage ‘one size fits all’; it does not importurban perceptions of development; it has theessential flexibility to mould itself to suit the crucialsite specific needs; it is developed with fullparticipation of people concerned.” 20The forests in the landscapeThe problem is that the forests in the vicinity ofsettlements are degraded: this pushes the peopletowards the protected area. It is also clear that peopleare highly dependent on forests for meeting theirsubsistence needs. The lack of irrigation facilitiesresults in low fodder productivity, which in turnputs pressure on existing common resources. Theproductivity of forests for foraging declines; peoplehave to keep more and more livestock to survive. Thepressure on the land increases, it degrades further.In such a situation, what clearly needs to be doneis to improve the productivity of forests and pasturelands in the vicinity of the reserves. If people livewithin a forest-dependent economy, then it isimperative to evolve policies for forest-developmentin these areas.It has been estimated that the rural demand forfuelwood in 1996 was 152 million tonne and it willrise to 187 million tonne by 2006. As against this, thelegal supply of fuelwood was a mere 46 milliontonne, according to a 1995 study 21 . The case fortimber is similar. The rural sector uptakes almost 70per cent of the domestic consumption of timber but,as against a demand for 54.4 million cubic meters in1996, the forests could only supply 12 million cubicmetres. 22 The current supply of fodder from allpossible sources, including forests, pasture lands andagricultural fields, is estimated to be 434 milliontonne as compared to an estimated demand of 992million tonne in 1990. 23 The gap for all the three —fodder, timber and firewood — is ever widening andis leading to degradation of growing stock.It is critical that the productivity of our forestsmust be increased. Currently, India’s growing stockof forest has a productivity at a dismally low level of0.7 cubic metre per ha per year as against a globalaverage of 2.1 cubic metre per ha per year. 24 It is clearthat unless we can do this and generate more biomassto meet the needs of people, the pressure on existingforests outside and inside protected areas will grow.According to the report, 287,769 sq km of land isclassified as open forests. The total area of tigerreserves in the country is 37,760 sq km. In otherwords, an area which is over eight times bigger ispotentially available for meeting fuel and fodderneeds. 25It is also clear that all tiger reserves are located inregions which are forested. But as explained earlier,these lands are also populated by the poorest in thiscountry. The challenge then is to find ways ofimproving productivity of these lands, in situationsof intense use by extremely poor people.The practice of joint forest managementJoint forest management was initiated in the early1990s to create reciprocal rights over forests betweenthe forest department and people. Under theprogramme, people were given rights over usufruct— grass and minor forest produce — in return forprotection on degraded forest land. In 2000, theguidelines for the programme were extended to coverforest land which was classified as dense forest(canopy cover of over 40 per cent). The programmewas also institutionalised: forest developmentagencies were created in states as federations of thejoint forest management committees.According to the Forests and Wildlife Statistics,India 2004 report of the Union ministry ofenvironment and forests the programme covers morethan 150,000 forest fringe villages and more than2,500 forest villages. 26 But unfortunately, the gains ofthis programme are not being realised.The problems are partly financial and partlyinstitutional.In part, the investment in afforestation is low; theinitiative also remains poorly coordinated. Theoutlay for the National Afforestation Programme isover Rs 1,100 crore over the five years of the 10 th FiveYear Plan. In addition, there is an allocation forwatershed programmes. Twenty per cent of ruraldevelopment funds are expected to be spent onafforestation as well. The problem is thecoordination required to ensure that all these fundsare spent through the village joint forest managementcommittees in forest land. 27The financial problem is related in part to theinstitutional hassles that continue to trouble thisscheme. The key problem with institutions created tomanage joint forest management remains theirinability to involve villagers in managing forests. Thescheme is still locked into the paradigm of definingThe way ahead 127