Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■Institute has spawned a large number of researchersworking in different parts of the country. Thecommunity of wildlife researchers has grownenormously over these years. In addition, there is anew breed of wildlife managers, who havespecialised in research and who can play effectiveroles in this discourse (see box: Wildlife Institute ofIndia — a critical role ahead).It is important, then, to realise that internalexpertise and confidence in research abilities hasgrown enormously since Project Tiger was launchedin the early 1970s. At that stage, Indian expertise wasconsiderably weaker and cat specialists and wildlifebiologists who were consulted for the design of theprogramme came from abroad. But today, with thegrowth of this area of expertise in the country, thesituation has changed.Indian researchers are competent to undertakethis research. In fact, unlike their counterparts in therest of the world, they bring uniquely Indianperspectives to wildlife matters. It is this researchknowledge that now needs to be integrated withpolicy.It is clear that research should not be singlydesigned for policy. At the same time, nobody canargue that policy should, or can be, designed withoutresearch. It is here that networking is neededthe most.Let us be clear: researchers do policy researchwhen there is a demand for it. Unfortunately, manytimes, policy is research-proof. On the other hand,policy makers argue that research is policy-proof.Clearly, there is no easy resolution to this issue. Whatis needed is to create forums — not just one but many— which can bring together these differentcommunities to a common discussion ground. Thisfacilitation of research and policy is essential.The Tiger Task Force would not want to suggestthat any one institution be put in charge of this work.But it is clear that the Wildlife Institute of India mustplay a greater and involved role in bringing togetherthese different groups and interests.Mechanisms to facilitate researchThe Tiger Task Force finds the Sukumar and Karanthguidelines to be quite reasonable, but would like tosuggest institutional mechanisms that would furtherWildlife Institute of India – a critical role aheadSet up in 1982, the Wildlife Institute of India (WII)marched ahead only when its was accordedautonomy in 1986. Support from its society,governing body (GB) and the Union ministry ofenvironment and forests (MoEF) facilitated its work intraining, academics and research domains so as toaccord with field realities of conservation —interspersion of dependent communities inwilderness areas of all kinds across the length andbreadth of India. Its faculty structures andprogrammes were tailored along these essential fieldrequirements and the progress was hailed by stateforest-wildlife organisations and scientific circles.Unfortunately, a decade’s setback after the early1990s undermined its functional autonomy andeven programmes. Delayed increase in facultystrength and in filling vacancies stalled progress.Low ingress of proven field wildlife managers to itsdeputation reserve in the faculty exacerbated theadversity. It is ironical that upgrading of thedirector’s post in proportion with the enhancedresponsibility and status, though approved by itsgoverning body, chaired by the secretary, MoEF andendorsed by its society presided over by theminister, MoEF, has remained pending now for 15years.There is no question that WII has to play a nodalrole in resurrecting wildlife and protected areamanagement along the imperative of a rationalparadigm shift so as to balance conservation and thesocio-economic well-being of forest dwelling people.Its founder faculty has the strength to carry forwardthis agenda meaningfully and speedily if thedeficiencies pointed above are remedied and itsfunctional autonomy with total transparency restoredwithout further delay. There is no reason for this notto happen, as all the concerned decision makers arepart of the institution’s governance as well.The WII has a nodal facilitating andcoordinating role in prioritising wildlife researchso as to meet the concerns of protected areamanages in terms of not just animal species but alsofor habitats within and for wildlife outsideprotected areas. It has to infuse professionalcapacity among foresters in order to have adynamic and effective protected area sub-cadre. WIIalso has to help national, regional and state levelforest training institution to ensure that they havecogent curricula and competent trainers. Last butnot the least, it has major work to do in order toadvance and consolidate its impressive progress inthe development of wildlife forensics. Its help, insetting up wildlife forensic cells within regional-Central and important state forensic laboratories, isneeded by way of training scientists and providingscientific protocols and reference materials for suchlabs to identify species of seized animal skins, otherbody parts and derivatives.The way ahead 83
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORTKnowledge-based management plansThe Project Tiger guidelines make it mandatory forevery tiger reserve to be managed in accordancewith a site-specific management plan. This is theroadmap for managing a tiger reserve. It lays downthe concept of core-buffer zoning, prescribedinterventions for protection, habitat improvement,field data collection relating to change in thecomposition of flora and fauna on account ofprotection, animal estimation and other aspects.But the management plan needs to bemade more dynamic and incorporate both theconcepts and plans of science, cohabitation,habitat management and monitoring morecomprehensively.It is notable that at the moment, there isa disconnect between the scientific researchconducted in tiger reserves and the monitoring andrevaluation of the management plans. As soon asthe proposed prioritisation of research is done foreach tiger reserve, the same must be made part of atiger reserve’s management plan. Upon completionof the research, the findings of research carried outon the priority areas should be used to constantlyupdate the management plans after an opendiscussion on it with the stakeholders, includingappropriate representatives of the people insideand outside the park (on the fringe), as theyare immediately affected by changes in themanagement of the reserve. This can ensure twothings: one, the management plan remains a moredynamic and alive document; two, there is avalidation of the conservation-oriented research asto its practicality.Similarly, on the social issues that affect thereserve, the management plan should also work asa dossier of information on the social profile of thereserve. The reserve authorities should compileand collect all social parameters, as delineated bythe Project Tiger directorate. On the basis of thedata and the plans made with Project Tiger forpeople-related issues, the plans should be madepart of the agenda for the tiger reserve authoritiesby incorporating them into the managementplan. The surrounding fringe areas as well asthe buffer zone need village level, participatorymicroplanning, with a legally enforceablememorandum of understanding between the tigerreserve management and the ecodevelopmentcommittees (already formed or about to be formed)spelling out the reciprocal contractual agreement.But for these management plans to becomedocuments that are open to advise and informationfrom all possible sources, either governmental ornon-governmental the plans must be put out inpublic domain by placing them on the project tigerwebsite. There must be a method to incorporate thesuggestions and submission made by researchersand other interested people and the method ofincorporating such submissions must be clear toeveryone as well and in public domain.The Task Force has recommended the creationof management committees for each reserve. Theplan must be discussed in the managementcommittees.The implementation of the plan and theoutcome of the interventions contained in the sameshould be annually monitored by a panel ofindependent experts.The Project Tiger directorate has prescribed aset of criteria (45) for standardising the monitoringwork which the Task Force has asked for acomprehensive review. The management plansshould include these criteria as well as evolve a setof their specific criteria, typically useful forevaluating the site.The evaluation criteria should assess planning,process, inputs and output. The criteria shouldcover: legal status, land use, biotic pressure, use ofthe area by other departments, management planupdating, status of buffer, staff development,antipoaching strategy adopted, infrastructure, fundflow, tourism regulation, trust with the localcommunities, vision beyond the tiger reserve andthe like.streamline the procedures and ensure betterutilisation of research output. As noted above,researchers feel that their work is not properly usedto make management decisions, while managerscontend that much of the research fails to addresssignificant management issues. This is undoubtedlyrelated to the fact that there is no existing mechanismof fruitful communication between researchers andmanagers.The Tiger Task Force feels that such aninstitutional mechanism should be established bothat the state and the national levels. This could takethe form of panels that may be chaired by theinspector general of forests (wildlife) or chief wildlifewardens, and include the secretary of the NationalBiodiversity Authority or the State BiodiversityBoard, and other experts in ecology, social sciencesand bio-statistics. It would be best if these panelsserve as ‘single window’ clearing houses for allmatters relating to wildlife research, so that they canstreamline current procedures rather than createanother layer. The Tiger Task Force further suggests84 The way ahead
Page 2 and 3:
THE REPORT OF THE TIGER TASK FORCEJ
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsIntroductionExecutive summa
Page 6 and 7:
IntroductionThe Tiger Task Force wa
Page 8 and 9:
TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 10 and 11:
Page 13:
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 16:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41:
Page 44 and 45: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 52: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 59 and 60: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 67: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 91 and 92: Wildlife research has been facing s
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
04Action plan for changeKey recomme
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
05References
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
show all

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?