Sunita Narain's ResponseText of Tiger Task Force chair Sunita Narain's
response to Valmik Thapar's dissent note (posted on
Net listservs on August 31, 2005) |
home Dear Mr Thapar,
This is with reference to your note of dissent on the
report of the Tiger Task Force. It is extremely
unfortunate you have decided to take this step, as I
do believe we have worked hard to put together a
report that will assist conservation of tigers in
India.
As I have explained to you, my effort as chairperson
has been to listen to and incorporate the views of
many concerned people across the country. We have
received submissions from and met over 200 different
experts, officials and villagers in the past three
months. The initial draft report, which you have,
includes references to these conversations and
research findings, as it is essential that informed
knowledge drives the process of conservation in the
country.
As I have discussed, I find one key problem with tiger
conservation is that the constituency in favour of the
tiger has become extremely exclusivist. Therefore,
even as threats to the tiger have multiplied, there is
limited support for its protection. The response of a
few conservationists has been to keep the group small,
as they believe that everyone else is against the
tiger. The problem is compounded by the fact that some
conservationists have direct interests in tiger
protection — through businesses in hotels, filming,
land or conservation and this has only lead to even
greater alienation of all against the tiger, which
they believe is being protected for the sake of a few.
I even told you I was extremely concerned at the level
of anger I saw among people in Ranthambhore — from
villagers to small hotel owners to guards and others.
Not only was it their complaint that they had got
nothing from the park, but they were bitter that
others — prominent conservationists — were misusing
their position to circumvent rules for their own
interests. This sense of injustice has created a huge
constituency against the park and I strongly believe
this is bad for conservation.
My effort, then, over the past few months has been
geared to making this constituency in favour of tiger
protection much more broadbased and inclusive. It is
for this reason that the draft report has detailed
these positions, for I believe that public support
will be crucial to further the cause of tiger
conservation.
We have, of course included your note of dissent in
the report, but let me take the opportunity to explain
many of the issues you have raised. I do believe that
we must work to understand each other so that
differences, over time, can be resolved.
1. You have quoted from the draft chapter, which looks
at the approach to make conservation work. According
to you, this “coexistence” that the report talks about
is just not possible and it will devastate the tiger.
The fact is that you have selectively quoted from the
chapter, when you are clear that the approach that we
are advocating in the report is very different — it is
much more nuanced and much more complicated. The
report makes clear that there are separate and equally
urgent strategies as far as the tiger protection is
concerned:
(a). We must make areas inviolate for tigers, as you
and your colleagues have suggested. But the report
only qualifies this, saying that making areas
inviolate for tigers will require more than strong
statements. For the first time, we have collected data
on the numbers of villages that have been relocated
from the reserves and how many remain to be relocated.
The facts are devastating. Only 80 villages have been
relocated from tiger reserves till date. There are
roughly 1,500 villages that still exist within the
reserves. Even the ones that been relocated have often
come back because relocation was shoddily done, or
have turned deeply antagonist to the tiger. This was
clearly evident in Ranthambhore on our visit. This, I
know, is a tiger reserve you know well. Therefore,
this task force has, for the first time, put these
facts on the table. It has argued that there needs to
be urgent, speedy and sensitive relocation of these
families. It has also argued that the funds for
relocation must be enhanced so that people can be
resettled without exacerbating conservation problems.
The Task Force has calculated that Rs 665 crore will
be required for this relocation, using even the
existing meagre budget norms. Please do note that till
date the country has spent Rs 14 crore on most
relocation efforts and Rs 173 crore on Central
assistance for tiger conservation in the past 30
years.
(b). The report has argued that if people continue to
live within the protected reserves (after the process
of relocation is complete and all cannot be relocated
by any chance), then ways have to be found in which we
can buy peace with communities. It is here that we
have suggested that different methods can be used —
from preferential shares in tourism to collaborative
management involving communities who will share
benefits and so safeguard the tiger. The report states
unequivocally that the current tension within the
parks is leading to disastrous consequences for the
tiger and conservation.
2. You have quoted from the draft chapter on
coexistence on the problems you have concerning the
analysis on the directions issued by the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC). I do realise that you are a
member of CEC, and therefore, our analysis of the
legal provisions as against the interpretation of CEC
is not easy for you to accept. I had, as promised,
read all the material on the CEC position and have
incorporated it in the chapter. But I still find that
the facts bring out a different position.
The issue is if the 2003 amendment of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 which gives powers to disallow
the collection of minor forest produce, grass and
other subsistence needs of communities can be enforced
without taking recourse to the safeguards also
provided in the same amendment, that make it incumbent
on governments to provide alternative fuel, fodder and
other forest produce in these cases.
The report argues:
(a). That the Ministry of Environment and Forests and
CEC should have also ensured that the alternatives
were provided, if the rights were expunged.
(b). That not doing so has meant that the anger of
local communities against the protected areas of India
has intensified.
3. The decision was to ask the prime minister to chair
the steering committee not to leave it as an either/or
option on revitalising the National Board for
Wildlife. The idea to request the Prime Minister to
chair the steering committee came from Mr Samar Singh.
We all agreed to it. However, it is clear that it is
the prerogative of the Prime Minister to decide and we
cannot direct him to do so. It is for this reason that
Mr Samar Singh and I decided to reformulate this
recommendation. But the intention is clear and I
cannot see any reason for your disagreement on this
matter.
4. Wildlife Crime Bureau should be headed by senior
officer in super time scale. But according to you, the
person should not report to the additional director
general of forests. Again, your raising this
completely baffles me. The fact is that the person has
to report within the given hierarchy. It was agreed
that the crime bureau would be within the MoEF and,
therefore, the officer reports to the senior-most
official in wildlife issues. Clearly, we could not
formulate this in a way that the officer would
continue to report to someone in CBI or home ministry,
unless the bureau was located there. We did not take
any such common decision.
5. On the extending of the term of the state empowered
committee of Rajasthan. The point in the report is
that the government of Rajasthan has not taken
adequate action as far as the episode in Sariska is
concerned. It is in this context that the report
mentions that the extension of the term of the state
committee (I know you are a member) has only led to
further delays as crucial decisions are pending. I
cannot see how this is factually incorrect or
misleading.
6. On dropping the box by Raghu Chundawat on the
harassment of scientists. The box is very much
included. It is not in the science chapter but in the
research chapter.
7. On glossing over the role of MoEF and Project Tiger
directorate in the Sariska and other debacles. Again,
everyone who knows me even a little should know that I
do not ‘gloss’ over the role of government. What I
have simply done is to look at the facts and the
circumstances to conclude that the key failure came
from the state government’s mismanagement (and
continued) mismanagement of the park in Sariska. What
we did discuss is why the systemic failure took place
so that the Project Tiger directorate was unable to
intervene and did not even have the information from
the state. It is this that led us to recommend the
need to convert Project Tiger into an authority and to
vest the officer in charge (whoever it may be) with
legal powers to facilitate working with states.
You repeatedly allege the report has a ‘people focus’
and not a ‘tiger focus’. I do not know how to respond
to this, because then you clearly do not even begin to
understand the challenge of tiger conservation in the
country today, as we see it and have detailed in the
report. Indeed, it is unfortunate you were
consistently busy during the entire term of the Task
Force, because of which your interaction with all of
us was limited. If we had seen more of you, I am sure
a better common understanding would have emerged.
I will publish this response in the report, along with
your note of dissent. I have always believed dialogue
is more powerful than dissent.
With regards
Yours cordially
Sunita Narain |
