Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■Much of the reform agenda was agreed upon. But inthe absence of careful follow-up with the states,many of these suggestions were not implemented.Then, in 2005, the Supreme Court intervenedagain, this time on an affidavit filed byconservationist Navin Raheja (writ number 47/1998),who pointed out that there existed difficulties in thetimely allocation of funds by the state governmentsto the tiger reserves. The Project Tiger directorate, inits affidavit in the above writ petition, stated thatwhile there was no standard definition for theterm ‘priority sector’. It had been used to giveimportance to wildlife and forests as against thefinancial allocations for other infrastructure andadministrative facilities as done in states in the caseof ‘law and order’. It was also stated that the prioritygiven by the Central government in this regard isreflected in its enhanced allocation to the wildlifesector — from Rs 170 crore in the 8 th Plan to Rs 800crore in the 10 th Plan.While reiterating the actions sought from thestate, a time frame was also suggested for fundrelease and utilisation certificate:“First instalment: By four weeks after receipt ofannual plan of operations from respective stategovernments, which should not be delayed beyondthe month of May of the financial year (since despiterepeated requests, the annual plan of operationsdoes not reach the ministry of environment andforests before mid-April by and large).“Second instalment: By two weeks after receipt ofutilisation certificate pertaining to previous yearfrom the states along with 60 per cent utilisationreport of funding support released as firstinstalment, which should not be delayed beyond themonth of December of the financial year.”As far as monitoring and evaluation was concerned,it stated that the regional monitoring of tiger reserveshas been undertaken by a panel of experts. 2The apex court accepted the process suggested inthe affidavit filed by the Project Tiger directorate anddirected that the states should make available thefunds the Government of India released for wildlifeconservation to field formations within 15 days. Theamount should be available for the purpose forwhich the Centre provided assistance. It is nowcrucial to ensure close monitoring to ensure thisdirection is implemented. 3Options for institutional reformThe Task Force is clear that in spite of these efforts,problems remain in the institutional framework formanagement. The events in Sariska and other keyconservation sites show there is a need, in states, formuch greater commitment and vigilance. It is alsoclear the institutions to manage conservation areweak and unprepared; professionals do not have therequisite training or capacities. Therefore, there is aneed to re-engineer and remodel the institutions ofgovernance. Without this, the agenda for reform willremain ad hoc and inadequate.The Task Force has considered two differentapproaches for institutional reform.Option 1: CentraliseThe aim here is to further centralise decision-makingby creating an authority that can be given the powersto coordinate the work of tiger reserves and overseeimplementation. This would emulate the example ofcountries that declare protected reserves as ‘federal’reserves, bringing their development under unifiedcontrol.In April 2005, the amicus curiae in the T NGodavarman forest case, ongoing in the SupremeCourt, filed an application asking for an authority tobe created for wildlife management. In thisapplication, it is said, “state governments and theirofficers, for whatever reason, have been unequal tothe task of protecting and preserving our nationalparks and sanctuaries. It is, therefore, necessary thatit is submitted as a matter of law, that the Centralgovernment take effective steps including by way ofconstituting an authority.” This authority wouldcomprise of civil servants and outsiders who wouldoversee the working and management of at least 25 ofthe significant protected areas, almost all of whichare tiger reserves. The funds collected fromcompensatory afforestation would be made availablein whole or in part to this authority for conservationof protected areas. This authority would be givencharge then of overseeing management. Stategovernments would have to ensure that the authorityis consulted in the appointment, posting or removalof senior officers in these reserves. 4This approach also includes creation of a nationalpark service-type force, which will be under Centralcontrol and can be posted to different parts of thecountry. It has been suggested that there should be anempanelment of officers, which can be considered forposting in any of the premier protected areas withinthe home state and in other states.In the current difficult times for conservation,these approaches seem simple and attractive enough.They require the disbanding or marginalisation ofcurrent institutions and their replacement withstructures which are centrally managed in the handsof a dedicated team.The Tiger Task Force has carefully consideredthese proposals. It believes it will create moreproblems for the tiger, even in the short run. TheThe way ahead 29