 |
Critical Times: Tiger Task Force and Valmik's Dissent NoteHere is a Dissent Note recorded by Valmik Thapar, member of the Task Force for Reviewing Management of Tiger Reserves, which he has requested should be made a part of the final report. The final report is available online at: It is no surprise, but it is nevertheless shocking, that the Task Force should have been hijacked in the direction it was taken. Conservationists had early on questioned the choice of chairperson. Sunita Narain and the Centre for Science and Environment, while undoubtedly respected and doing pathbreaking, positive work on several environmental fronts, has for years been against wildlife conservation as it is currently practised. Its analyses on wildlife issues have always been pro-people. I see nothing wrong with being pro-people but honest analysis should have no bias of any kind. Coming from this background was a cause of concern. The concerns unfortunately appear to have been justified. - Nirmal Ghosh |
To
Ms Sunita Naraian, Subject: Dissent Note on the Draft Report of the Task Force for Reviewing the Management of Tiger Reserves Dear Ms Sunita Narain, Thanking you for sending me the concept paper on "A Paradigm Change - "Making Conservation work" and the chapter on Co-existence of people. Both raise serious issues that impact on the entire report. Let us not forget that the task force was mandated to suggest measures to save the tiger from vanishing off the face of India. It was a response to an ongoing tiger crisis. Unfortunately, in its eagerness to find 'eternal solutions' for all problems afflicting the country at one go, the Committee appears to have lost this mission-focus and has gone adrift trying to find solutions to all the problems of inequity and social injustice that afflict India. In the process the interests of the tiger's survival has been lost sight of. The fact is that all the 'potential tiger habitats in the protected areas of India, add up only to 100,000 sq. km. and populations where reproduction is taking place now occupy less than 20,000 sq. km. A relatively small fraction of India's huge rural poor population is exposed to tigers. The premise that there are vast areas of India where tigers and people must be forced to co-exist through some innovative scheme of increased use of underutilized forest resources by involving local people does not make any sense to tiger conservation. The fact is each tiger must eat 50 cow-sized animals a year to survive, and if you put it amidst cows and people, the conflict will be eternal and perennial. Tigers continue to lose out as they did in Sariska (and over 95% of their former range in India). The premise of continued co-existence over vast landscapes where tigers thrive ecologically, as well people thrive economically, is an impractical dream, with which I totally disagree. Such dreaming cannot save the tiger in the real world. On the other hand such a scenario will be a "no win" situation for everyone and result in further declines and the eventual extinction of tiger populations Alternatives where tigers have priority in identified protected reserves and people have priority outside them have to be explored and implemented. There is no other way. The present concept of a 'new' coexistence is an utopian idea, and impractical and will not work. This I am absolutely clear about. Blaming strict nature reserves and conservation laws where tigers have priority, for all the poverty and inequity driven ills that plague our vast country is pointless polemics: These ills are consequences of the failure of development, economics and politics of the country and society as a whole and cannot be simple-mindedly blamed on conservationists. In the chapter on the co-existence of people with tigers, a tirade against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 14.2.2000, 3.4.2000, 10.5.2001, February, 2002, guidelines issued by the MoEF and Amicus Curiae who had moved the application pursuant to which some of the above orders have been passed, and clarification dated 2.7.2004 issued by the CEC for implementation of the Hon'ble Court's order is totally unwarranted, misplaced, unjustified and in bad taste. The report gives an impression that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed these orders without application of mind, which are anti-people and are against the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. This view is totally incorrect and unacceptable. I strongly believe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders have been of great help in furthering the cause of conservation and the protection of wildlife habitat. The large scale destruction of the tiger habitat due to massive mining, tree felling, supply of bamboo to paper mills, diversion of protected area habitat for ill conceived projects, etc. have been controlled to a great extent which could not have been possible but for the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. The report is also critical of the role of the CEC alleging, impracticability, and illegality of its orders. The concept paper simply ignores what sound science tells us about tiger conservation. It fails to note the deteriorating protection of the tiger reserve, and the need to put in place alternative, effective mechanisms to protect the core breeding populations of tigers in these protected areas. "A Paradigm for Change" should have included a complete revision in the process of protection and enforcement coupled with reform. Though this is suggested in other chapters its absence in the concept is perplexing. In fact, now the very concept of creating and protecting inviolate tracts in Protected Areas will come into direct conflict with the recommendations of 'Co-existence with People'. The end result will be a 'khichri" of recommendations that will fight each other and come to nought. Why on earth would people want to relocate when suggested recommendations for "co-existence" can enhance their life 100 fold. And it can only be at the cost of the tiger. We should not forget that there are criminal elements out there ready to kill the tigers and plunder their home under the cover of livelihood related uses given a chance. The report of the CBI about Sariska endorsed this view. Our mandate is about securing the future of the tiger and this can only be done in the framework of our laws. Our mandate is therefore very clear. I reiterate that a certain minimum area has to be managed exclusively in its natural form for the tiger. The area may be ½%, 1% or 2% or more of the geographical area of this country depending on the political mandate to do so. Let the principle of this be applied in the interest of the tiger. Let us not forget that it is those areas which provide the water, food and ecological security of the country. I had prepared and sent you (i) a draft report (now final) identifying specific problems of tiger conservation and giving specific solutions; (ii) an action plan for co-existence of people (Annexure A and B); (iii) objection to Research and Study Chapter (Annexure C); (iv) objecting to the sub-cadre in wildlife as given the alternative of creating a panel of suitable officers (Annexure D); and (v) supporting note for creation of Central Forest Protection Force (Annexure E). It is requested that this letter along with the above stated enclosures may please be recorded as my dissent note to the report. Since the complete draft of the report and the executive summary have not so far been shared with me, I am unable to give point by point input/view on the same, but the final draft of the concept paper and the chapter on co-existence reveals a complete difference of opinion between me and the rest of the task force. Before parting, I am constrained to observe that sadly much of the report has become focused on how to improve the life of people inside protected areas rather than protecting tigers inside them. This people focus should have been the job of another task force. The focus on the tiger has therefore blurred since the priorities have shifted. In a way this is tragic and if some of the recommendations are endorsed in policy they could have dangerous repercussions for the tiger. Best wishes, Yours sincerely, (Valmik Thapar) |
 |