12.07.2015 Views

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTDISSENT NOTEANNEXURE-BRECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE REGARDING COEXISTENCE OF PEOPLE IN THEPROTECTED AREAS – DRAFT PREPARED BY VALMIK THAPARBASIC CONSERVATION STRATEGYi) The areas falling within <strong>the</strong> National Parksshould be made inviolate. People living in<strong>the</strong>se areas should be relocated and <strong>the</strong>irrights acquired under <strong>the</strong> WLPA. If anyvillage is not found <strong>of</strong> strategic importancewithin <strong>the</strong> National Park <strong>the</strong> boundary <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> park should be altered to exclude suchvillage. The excluded village may beincluded in <strong>the</strong> adjoining sanctuary, ifany. Needless to say that rehabilitationpackage should be <strong>the</strong> best available andattractive.ii) Relocation from <strong>the</strong> sanctuary should berestricted to <strong>the</strong> minimum possible takinginto account <strong>the</strong> conservation value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>area i.e. <strong>the</strong> relocation should be restrictedto <strong>the</strong> area which are absolutely vital for<strong>the</strong> protection <strong>of</strong> tigers and are to be treatedas “core area” for tiger conservation.iii) A detailed time bound plan for relocation<strong>of</strong> villages identified should be preparedand funds required should be madeavailable at <strong>the</strong> earliest.iv)It should be made clear that <strong>the</strong> existingprovisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> W.L. (P) Act. allows <strong>the</strong>right holders to carry out <strong>the</strong>ir legitimateactivities such as agriculture, grazing, etc.v) Pursuant to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orderdated 14.2.2000 in IA No. 548, noharvesting/removal <strong>of</strong> forest produceincluding minor forest produce ispermissible from nationalparks/sanctuaries.vi)vii)It may be clarified that <strong>the</strong> WLPA allowsmaking <strong>of</strong> alternate arrangements formaking available fuel, fodder, and o<strong>the</strong>rforest produce to <strong>the</strong> existing right holders(Section 18-A(2)). Section 29 <strong>of</strong> WLPAprovide that any forest produce requiredfrom <strong>the</strong> sanctuaries should be distributedfor meeting <strong>the</strong> personal bona fide needs <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> people living in and around <strong>the</strong>sanctuaries (and not for any commercialpurpose).In view <strong>of</strong> above legal provisions, <strong>the</strong> MoEFmay move <strong>the</strong> Hon’ble Supreme Court formodification <strong>of</strong> its order dated 14.2.2000 toenable <strong>the</strong> legal right holders to enjoy <strong>the</strong>benefits in <strong>the</strong> sanctuary and in <strong>the</strong> areaswhere final notifications have not beenissued. The CEC has filed its report dated4th November, 2004, which is underconsideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hon’ble SupremeCourt. The MoEF may intervene in <strong>the</strong> saidI.A. and modification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> said order.viii) A number <strong>of</strong> sanctuaries have beennotified which include non-strategic areas<strong>of</strong> very low conservation value with manyvillages. A time bound exercise <strong>of</strong>rationalizing <strong>the</strong> boundaries <strong>of</strong> suchsanctuaries should be undertaken by <strong>the</strong>MoEF in consultation with <strong>the</strong> States. Thisprocess will result in <strong>the</strong> exclusion <strong>of</strong>many areas. This will be <strong>of</strong> great help inmitigating <strong>the</strong> sufferings <strong>of</strong> a large number<strong>of</strong> people.ix) Even in non-strategic areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>sanctuaries, if <strong>the</strong> villagers volunteer toshift out, such shifting should befacilitated.x) The villages from <strong>the</strong> sanctuaries may beallowed to be shifted into reserveforest/protected forest/unclassed forestwithout payment <strong>of</strong> compensatoryAfforestation, NPV, etc. For this purpose asimplified procedure for granting approvalunder <strong>the</strong> F.C. Act should be formulated.xi) For <strong>the</strong> villagers which remain inside <strong>the</strong>sanctuary, innovative interventions within<strong>the</strong> framework <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law and <strong>the</strong> SupremeCourt’s order should be introduced toensure that <strong>the</strong> bona fide livelihood needs<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> local people are taken care <strong>of</strong>. Thesemay include :a) preference in employment invarious government departments;b) engagement in water and soilconservation and o<strong>the</strong>r forestmanagement measures;c) involvement in village protectionforce;d) passing on part <strong>of</strong> cess collectedfrom nearby hotels;e) employment in private sector hotels174 Annexures

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!