Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTWildlife Crime Bureau to be set up immediately.Perhaps, then, India can look after her tigers.Perhaps India can look after her tigers better bybeing imaginative in this sphere (see: Innovativeprotection agenda, p 63-69). Poachers rely uponextremely skilled local communities of hunters, whoknow the forest better than the backs of their hands.Poachers can; money can buy anything, especiallyextremely poor people. But what if the hunter turnsprotector? The report records such an initiative inCambodia. In India, too, such a turnaround ispossible: research shows that the Lisu of Changlangdistrict in Arunachal Pradesh could become the bestprotectors of the Namdapha tiger reserve there (see: p65-67). Periyar tiger reserve in Kerala proves it can bedone (see: p 67-68). Couldn’t innovations like this bereplicated, where possible, elsewhere in the country?For this to happen, at least one bridge has to bebuilt: between the conservation bureaucracy andwildlife researchers. The Task Force finds thecurrent disconnect between the two extremelydisturbing (see: The research agenda, p 80-87).Indeed, it finds weak correlation between thepractice of conservation and the knowledgeproduced on and about it. The report points to thepug-mark method of counting tigers as the bestexample of this practice becoming unscientific overtime, and agrees this method needs to be replaced(see: The science agenda, pp 70-79). It reviews themethodology that is being suggested as an alternativeand finds it will work better in estimating tigers andtheir habitat. It wants this method to be tried outurgently.An outlook that believes conservation meansfencing forests off by fiat is too narrow. Many tigerslive outside tiger reserves. Thus conservation needsto focus on the larger landscape. It must also be aninclusive effort: the wildlife biologist or communityecologist is equally crucial to it. The Sariska debaclewent unnoticed also because information on tigernumbers there was fudged. The Task Force urges foropenness and for independent audits that can buildand break the ‘reputations’ of state leaders inmanaging their tiger populations.Out in the openThe simplest way to protect the tiger is to renderinviolate the space it roams in, catching prey. InIndia, this means keeping all people out of forestsdeclared as protected areas (as reserves, orsanctuaries, or national parks). As people live inreserves, they need to be ‘relocated’ so that thespace is made ‘inviolate’ and undisturbed.Conservationists demand it. But what is the situationon the ground?For the first time, data has been collected on thenumber of villages — families and people — that liveinside India’s tiger reserves. The Task Force places itin the public domain (see: The relocation agenda, p88-98; specifically, see: p 89-91).The data is not complete — there is no properassessment of the total number of settlements in tigerreserves. But what does exist proves a) relocation is alogistical nightmare and b) it has a cost that isunaccounted for.The first is borne out by the fact that in the last 30years, only 80 villages and 2,904 families have beenrelocated from different tiger reserves in the country.Readers of this summary could consult the table on p91 Costs of relocation. The Task force has estimatedthat, roughly, there are 1,500 villages — or 65,000families, or 325,000 people (@ five per family) —inside the core and buffer zones of tiger reserves. Atthe current rate of compensation the governmentgives to families it seeks to relocate (Rs 1 lakh), itwould cost Rs 665 crore to relocate all families fromtiger reserves. If the rate of compensation isenhanced — say, to Rs 2.5 lakh — it would require Rs1,663 crore to re-settle all.There’s more. Usually, forest land is used to resettlefamilies (no agency has the gumption, orpolitical will, to provide revenue land). Today, if astate government were to use forest land and re-settlepeople, it would have to pay the Centre what iscalled the NPV, or net present value of the forest itwould divert for the purpose of re-settlement. TheNPV amount has been fixed at Rs 5.8 to Rs 9 lakh perhectare (depending on the category of forestdiverted). Therefore, to re-settle all families fromtiger reserves, the government will require Rs 9,645crore.This stalemate has to be broken. The Task Forcesuggests a way ahead. It asks for a scientificassessment of the villages that need to be relocatedand it asks for a time-bound programme for this tohappen. It asks caution but it also demands speed.The situation today is untenable for the people wholive inside. The unwritten policy is that they will berelocated. As a result, no development reaches them,for then they wouldn’t want to leave. But relocationdoes not happen. People become, and remain,trespassers in their own land.They came backIn Sariska, villagers of Kraska village were offeredland by the forest department in a village outside thereserve’s core area. They relinquished their landownershipcertificates and shifted to that village,only to face the wrath of its residents. Selling off thenew land they had got at low prices, the villagerswent back into the core. Now they live in anatmosphere that is war-like: harassed, forciblyviiiExecutive summary