06 Annexures

I. The composition and terms of reference

of the Tiger Task Force
II. Note of dissent by Valmik Thapar, member,
Tiger Task Force
III. Response of the chairperson, Tiger Task Force,
to note of dissent
IV. Expert consultations based on terms of reference
of the Tiger Task Force
V. Visits of the Tiger Task Force
VI. Experts requested to comment on
methodology of tiger estimation
VII. Suggestions received on the terms of reference
of Tiger Task Force
VIII. Methodology for estimating and monitoring
tiger status and habitat
IX. Investing in institutions for change:
strengthening the Project Tiger directorate
X. A critique of cadre-building in the forestry sector and
suggestions for human resource improvement
XI. Amending the criminal provisions of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
XII. Guideline on establishment of widlife wings issued 1973-1981

Annexures 161

161
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-I The composition and terms of

reference of the Tiger Task Force
No 6 (4)/2005-PT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
(PROJECT TIGER)
Annexe No. 5, Bikaner House
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-11
Dated the 19th April, 2005.

NOTIFICATION
In pursuant to the decision taken during the second meeting of the National Board for Wildlife held on
17-3-2005, a Task Force for reviewing the management of Tiger Reserves has been constituted. The Members
of the Task Force are as follows:

(1) Ms Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment. - Chairperson
(2) Shri H S Panwar, Ex-Head, Project Tiger and Ex-Head, - Member
Wild Life Institute of India.
(3) Prof Madhav Gadgil, Environmental Historian and Member, - Member
National Board for Wildlife.
(4) Shri Valmik Thapar, Member, National Board for Wildlife. - Member
(5) Shri Samar Singh, Ex-Secretary, Govt. of India and Member, - Member
National Board for Wildlife.

The terms of reference of the Task Force are as follows:

1. Suggest measures to strengthen tiger conservation in the country.

2. Suggest measures to incentivise the local community in conservation of tigers.
3. Suggest measures to incentivise local forest staff posted in sanctuaries/national parks and ensure an
effective HR plan for tiger conservation/wildlife managers.
4. Suggest measures to improve the methodology of tiger counting and forecasting.
5. Suggest methods of transparent professional audit of wildlife parks and placing data on tiger conservation
in the public domain.
6. Suggest a new wildlife management paradigm that shares concerns of conservation with the public at
large.
2. The Project Tiger Division of the Ministry of Environment & Forests would be facilitating the working of
the Task Force and render all necessary help.
3. The Task Force should submit its report within three months from the date of this notification.
4. The sitting fees and travel cost would be reimbursed to the Members of the Task Force as per norms.

(DR. RAJESH GOPAL)

IGF & DIRECTOR, PROJECT TIGER
To
(1) All Members of the Task Force.
(2) P.M.O.
(3) PS to MEF
(4) PS to MOS (E&F)
(5) PPS to Secretary (E&F)
(6) PPS to DGF & SS
(7) PPS to Addl. DGF (WL)

162 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ANNEXURE-II Note of dissent

19, Kautilya Marg,
Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi-110021
Dated: 27.07.2005

To

Ms Sunita Narain,
Chairperson,
Task Force for Reviewing the
Management of Tiger Reserves,
New Delhi

Subject : Dissent Note on the Report of the Task Force for Reviewing the Management of Tiger
Reserves

I am enclosing my Note of Dissent on the report alongwith Annexure A to D. It may please be ensured
that this Note of Dissent alongwith enclosures is recorded and incorporated in the final report. A soft copy on
floppy is also enclosed.

Please acknowledge receipt.

VALMIK THAPAR
Member
Task Force for Reviewing the
Management of Tiger Reserves

Annexures 163
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

NOTE OF DISSENT BY VALMIK THAPAR, MEMBER ON THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE
FOR REVIEWING THE MANAGEMENT OF TIGER RESERVES

I. The long term survival of tigers will depend on the single most important factor namely inviolate
protected areas A certain minimum area has to be managed exclusively in its natural form for the tiger.
The area may be ?%, 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. After all it is these areas
which provide the water, food and ecological security of the country. On the other hand the entire report
is based on a totally different strategy namely that:

“There are two essential strategies here:

1. The habitat must be shared between the people and the tigers, so that both can coexist, as
they must. The poverty of one, otherwise, will be the destruction of the other.”

(Page 4, Chapter 02 – A Paradigm Change – Making Conservation Work)

II. The concept paper on “A Paradigm Change – “Making Conservation work” and the chapter on Co-
existence of people 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 Task Force 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 relegated and lost sight of.

III. It is imperative to note 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.
This is 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 the local people does
not make any sense to tiger conservation especially when the human and cattle populations are
constantly rising. 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 fast and implemented expeditiously. 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.

IV. In the chapter 5.8 “The Co-Existence Agenda”, it is stated that:

“Exacerbating tensions with protection

If this was not bad enough, recent events have made things even more unbearable for the people who
live in these reserves.

In February 2000, the Amicus Curiae (in the omnibus forest case ongoing in the Supreme Court),
had filed an application seeking ….. The court in its order dated 14.2.2000 ordered that
“in the meantime, we restrain the respondents from ordering the removal of dead, diseased,
dying or wing-fallen trees, drift wood and grasses etc. from the national park or game sanctuary
or forest.”

164 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

This order has lead to a number of directions: ….

But matters (and confusion) did not end there.

On October 20, 2003, the Ministry of Environment and Forests wrote to all chief secretaries a letter
detailing the guidelines for diversion of forest land for non forest purposes under the Forest
Conservation Act 1980. …

But even this was not enough.

On July 2, 2004, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) set up the Supreme Court to assist it in the
forest matters, wrote to all state governments ….

Impact on conservation

The combined result of these directions, orders and clarifications has been that all hell has broken
loose in the protected areas. …”

The report gives an impression that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders dated 14.2.2000, 3.4.2000,
10.5.2001, and February, 2002, application moved by the Amicus Curiae pursuant to which some of the
above orders have been passed, guidelines issued by the MoEF and clarification dated 2.7.2004 issued by
the CEC for implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order are unwarranted, misplaced and that
these have been issued without application of mind. This view is totally unacceptable. I firmly believe
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders have been most invaluable 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 significantly something which would not have been
possible but for the intervention by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

V. 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 the chapter
on Co-existence with people the recommendation of relocating people will come into direct conflict with
the recommendations on co-existence of people. In the end the recommendations would be a bundle of
contradictions and the outcome will come to naught. The suggested measures because of the inherent
contradictions will only cause further degradation of the tiger habitat and the tiger will be the end
sufferer. After all why on earth would anyone want to leave a protected area when the co-existence
package is so attractive? We are only too aware 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 has confirmed this. Let us not overlook the fact that our mandate is about securing the
future of the tiger and this can only be done in the framework of our laws. Let there be no doubt about
our mandate.

VI. Even after many rounds of discussions, the final chapters have changes that were never discussed. For
instance few examples are:

(i) the decision taken by the Task Force was that the Hon’ble Prime Minister should Chair the Steering
Committee of Project Tiger. This was not “either or” with the National Board of Wildlife (Chapter –
The Way Ahead);

(ii) it was agreed that the Wildlife Crime Bureau should be headed by a senior officer in the super time
scale. Now added to this is “the person should report to the Additional Director General of Forests”.
Can this make any sense? All it will do is to prevent his independent functioning in such sensitive
investigative job. This is a typical bureaucratic approach to make the system ineffective (Chapter –
Domestic Enforcement – 3.3(a));

Annexures 165
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

(iii) regarding the State Empowered Committee of Rajasthan, I had clearly mentioned that the extension
of the term of the Committee was to do with the census the Committee was carrying out. The
Committee had taken a series of actions from its inception. Now the said paragraph states “….but has
now extended its term by another three months which has delayed the urgent action needed” (page 7
of Chapter 2 – The Sariska Shock). This is factually incorrect and misleading;

(iv) there was a boxed section in the Chapter 3.5 “The Science Agenda” on how senior researchers and
scientists have been hounded and harassed by officials in the Parks. This has now been totally
deleted though it was earlier agreed to be retained.

VII. I am also quite shocked how the report has glossed over the role of the MoEF including the Project Tiger
Directorate in recent years. In the report given by me in the first meeting itself on 29th April, 2005, I had
clearly brought out the role of the Project Tiger in the debacle that took place in Sariska and the extinction
of tigers in Keladevi Sanctuary. It was then pointed out by me that there was need to inquire into and fix
the responsibility for the debacle. The vital issues raised in the above report find no mention in the final
report without any apparent reasons. Since then more than 21 tigers have been found to be missing in
Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. This is a very serious issue. Again very little of this finds place in the report
(ANNEXURE-D).

I had earlier sent to you (i) a draft report (now final) identifying specific problems of tiger conservation
and giving specific solutions (ANNEXURE-A); (ii) an action plan for co-existence of people (ANNEXURE-B); and
(iii) objection to Research and Study Chapter (ANNEXURE-C). I have also objected to the sub-cadre in wildlife
and have instead proposed the alternative of creating a panel of suitable officers (Para 1(I to v) of Part II of my
report (ANNEXURE-A). I have also urged a Central Forest and Wildlife Protection Force may be set up (Para 2(vi)
of Part II) of my report (ANNEXURE-A).

Copies of the above are enclosed as ANNEXURE-A to ANNEXURE-C to this Note of Dissent. These together with
ANNEXURE-D form part of my Dissent Note.

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.

(Valmik Thapar)
Member
Task Force for Reviewing the
Management of Tiger Reserves

Dated :27.07.2005

166 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

DISSENT NOTE

ANNEXURE-A

A PLAN OF ACTION TO ENSURE THE LONG TERM SURVIVAL OF TIGERS

INTRODUCTION having more than 40 per cent density has been lost in
just two years. Out of this area of 26,245 sq. kms of
1. The Sariska tiger crisis happened because (a) the dense forests, a total of 23,140 sq. kms is in
Tiger Reserve was completely mismanaged thereby potentially rich tiger habitats and includes, among
leaving the field open for poachers; (b) the actual others, States like Assam, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
number of tigers was much less than that reflected in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and
the earlier census figures because the census was not Uttranchal. The trends revealed in this latest report
participatory, transparent and scientific, the total are exceedingly grave and disturbing and, if not
count pugmark census methodology used since the reversed, could have serious consequences for the
1970s has been proven inaccurate; and (c) excessive tiger’s forests. There would be 300,000 sq. kms of
human and livestock disturbance right across the potential tiger habitat. Less than 10% contain
area. breeding population.

2. The Sariska tiger crisis is symptomatic of most of 4. The unregulated biotic pressure has resulted in a
India. In 2004-2005 local extinctions have taken conflict of interests between the local population and
place not only in Sariska Sanctuary but also in Kela the forest management with the real threat of large
Devi Sanctuary in Rajasthan. These two sanctuaries scale destruction of wildlife habitat looming on the
between them lost 24 tigers. There was also a sharp horizon. Encroachments, delayed settlement of rights
decline of 21 tigers in Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. of the people and the diversion of forests for ill
All the seven tigers in the Palpurkuno Sanctuary and conceived projects have compounded the problems.
all the six tigers in Rani Durgawati Sanctuary in In this background the populist approach of liberally
Madhya Pradesh have been wiped out and are now regularizing encroachments and grant of pattas in
locally extinct. The decline across the North East forest areas and management interventions in the
including Namdapha and Dampha Tiger Reserves form of dry bamboo extraction, underplanting, etc.
coupled with the declines in places like Palamau will both mean further fragmentation inviting
Tiger Reserve, Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Dudhwa Tiger irreversible ecological disaster. Ultimately the tiger
Reserve, Indrawati Tiger Reserve, Panna Tiger itself will be on the brink of extinction.
Reserve and Nagarjuna Sagar Tiger Reserve reflect
the grim national scenario. The States have obviously 5. Tiger populations breed well and grow rapidly
not given the required priority to the issue of in population in habitats without incompatible
conservation and protection of tigers human uses. They cannot co-exist with people
notwithstanding the existence of many reports, particularly in a situation where both human impacts
recommendations and the Wildlife Action Plan that and livestock grazing are continuously on the
are drawn up from time to time after involving increase. In the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve the
experts at the national level. The non- tiger has gone locally extinct in Kela Devi Sanctuary
implementation of the National Wildlife Action Plan and Sawai Mansingh Sanctuary in the year 2005.
(2002-2016) particularly stands out starkly in this The reason for this is the presence of 52,510 goats,
regard. 10178 buffaloes, 4928 cows and even 37 camels. Not
to talk of 40 villages and their ever increasing human
3. The tremendous pressure on forests and the population. One wonders whether this sanctuary
unsustainable levels of biomass removals by local has been declared to protect forest and wildlife or
people as well as by the forest department and cattle? The long term survival of tigers will therefore
rampant grazing have adversely affected the National depend on how secure and inviolate are the
Parks/sanctuaries/reserve forests. The State of the protected areas in which they live.
Forest Report, 2003, clearly brings out that the forests
having more than 70 per cent density is only 51,285 6. In the above background an attempt has been
sq. kms. (1.56 per cent of this country’s geographic made to highlight the problems (Part I) under six
area). Further, an area of 26,245 sq. kms (0.75 per heads as below :
cent of country’s geographic area) of dense forests i) Forest Personnel;

Annexures 167
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ii) Infrastructure; be effective. This also raises issues like how do you
iii) Biotic Pressure on the Wildlife Habitat; create a system to ensure that the best person is on
iv) Policy and Enforcement Issues; the job and how do we make him fully effective in
v) Research, Science and Monitoring ; and that job? Particularly given that the State
vi) Funds Related Issues Governments really make the final decisions in all
personnel posting in reserves. How do we attempt
7. Similarly, an attempt has also been made to this?
provide possible solutions to the problems listed in
the preceding para within the existing legal and 10. Similarly, to minimize human disturbance how
administrative framework that exists in India. The do you involve the forest management and the local
solutions suggested (Part II) have been indicated inhabitants? Ultimately both the forest management
under the following heads : and the local people have to develop a sense of pride
i) Manage the Protected Area with Competent and satisfaction in what they are doing if the forests
Officials so that Problems are Resolved ; and wildlife are to be conserved and protected.
ii) Sensitize the Centre and State Today the area in which tigers live undisturbed is
Administration to the Needs of the Tiger; grossly inadequate and therefore the long term
iii) Prevent Destruction of the Tiger’s Habitat; survival of the tiger hangs in the balance.
iv) Strengthen Research and Training Across
Tiger Habitats; 11. There has to be close coordination and
v) Provide Timely Funds to all Specially dovetailing of the activities initiated by the National
Designated Tiger Areas; Level Committee headed by the Prime Minister, the
vi) Legal Support; and State Level Committee headed by the Chief Minister
vii) International Cooperation. and the National Advisory Committee on Research
so that they all move and act in tandem and become
8. The Plan of Action drawn up identifies the receptive mechanisms for change.
problems and provide solutions without becoming
encyclopedic. The problems have to be tackled on a 12. It is with all these factors in mind that this plan
war footing to ensure that the solutions are faithfully of action has been spelt out in a simple and straight
implemented in the field in a time bound manner. forward way without too much detail which
The need of the hour is implementation. wherever further required has been left to the
appropriate expert administrative and research
9. Issues related to personnel matters need to be committees. This Plan of Action has been so
given a very high priority because the officials who structured so as to ensure that the existing delicate
manage the tiger’s landscape, and the local people, balance of responsibility and power between the
have to be committed and dedicated and trained to Centre and the State is not disturbed.

PART I

THE PROBLEMS

1. FOREST PERSONNEL years.

vi) No effective system of specialized training
i) Lack of professionally trained, committed, (induction stage, in service etc.)
competent and physically fit Field vii) Transfer policy – no fixed tenure.
Directors and other officials. Irrational transfers on extraneous
ii) The Forest Department’s mindset is that of considerations.
an owner not a custodian. viii) Lack of incentives including special pay,
iii) There is no system of selective housing, etc.
appointments to the sensitive posts at ix) Insufficient promotion avenues –forest
various levels in the PAs/Tiger Reserves. guards remain stagnant for years.
(Instead many are treated as punishment x) Poor service conditions for front line staff
postings). in terms of provisions for ration, special
iv) Vacant posts numbering nearly 5000 in pay, family accommodation, working
PAs/Tiger Reserves. hours, schooling, medical facilities,
v) The average age of forest guards is above 50 compensatory leave, life and other

168 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

insurance policies etc. ix) Unregulated and poor tourism management.

xi) Physical fitness programme – No training x) Excessive/illegal grazing and removal of
or drill centres on site. fuelwood, MFP, etc. continues at
xii) Lack of effective disciplinary action system unsustainable levels.
against the delinquent officials. xi) Presence of roads (State and other roads)
Punishment should be swift and act as a with heavy traffic passing through PAs.
deterrent. xii) Poor management of tigers outside
xiii) Lack of priority for deployment of armed PAs/tiger reserves.
police in time of crisis/to sensitive area.
IV. POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
II. INFRASTRUCTURE
i) Lack of will at higher echelons of political
i) Forest Officials are not empowered to use and administrative set up at both Centre
fire arms for protection of Government and State levels (committees hardly meet,
property/forest produce/wildlife except in decisions kept pending, whatever decision
Karnataka/Tamil Nadu. taken remains unimplemented, posts not
ii) Inadequate as well as out dated fire arms filled, dual charge, powers of
exist with the officials and wherever transfer/posting misused, etc.).
available no proper training programme/ ii) Ineffective role of the MoEF in convening
facilities exist. meetings of committees, decision taking
iii) Lack of uniform, shoes, patrolling kit for delayed, poor follow up action on
the staff. decisions taken, appointments etc. Endless
iv) No/inadequate wireless hand-sets for recommendations of expert committees
communication. gathering dust in MoEF for years e.g.
v) Inadequate mobility (motorcycles, jeeps, Subramanayam Committee.
trucks, boats, etc.). iii) Lack of a grasp of human and ecological
vi) Inadequate forest chowkies/posts, anti concerns in wildlife conservation resulting
poaching camps, patrol camps and staff in poor policy.
quarters. iv) National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016)
vii) Poor service and maintenance of vehicles, only on paper. Completely ignored and
wireless, chowkies/checkposts, buildings, remains unimplemented.
equipments, etc. v) Lack of professionally trained wildlife
officials leading to poor enforcement of
III. BIOTIC PRESSURE ON THE WILDLIFE forest and wildlife laws which is a critical
HABITAT component in the protection work.
vi) Lack of coordination between Centre and
i) Settlement of acquisition rights under State in the implementation of policies,
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pending laws, guidelines and directives.
for decades in PAs. vii) Lack of coordination amongst the various
ii) No effective steps taken to prevent and agencies/departments.
remove encroachments. viii) National Wildlife Crime Bureau is yet to be
iii) Very poor progress of relocation of set up even though decision to create it was
villages located inside the National taken eight years ago.
Park/sanctuary. ix) Ineffective intelligence collection and
iv) Inadequate compensation for the loss of networking at local level, state level,
life and property including crops resulting national level and international level, and
in anger and deliberate damage both to absent or ineffective in most States.
wildlife and habitat.
v) Habitat fragmentation due to ill conceived V. RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND MONITORING
projects/schemes which have adverse
impact on PAs. i) No wildlife management manual – the
vi) Absence of adequate wildlife corridors Protected Area manager has no guidelines
connecting one PA/Tiger Reserve with to refer to and no clear prescription to
another. follow which leads to taking ad hoc
vii) Conflict of PA with local community decisions.
(within as well as in peripheral villages). ii) Absence/poor quality of Management
viii) Rampant legal/illegal mining continues. Plan for Protected Area. Wherever they

Annexures 169
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

exist the prescriptions are poorly VI. FUNDS RELATED ISSUES

implemented due to lack of funds or
expertise. i) Grossly inadequate allocation – (State
iii) Poor scientific input in management and plan, Central Plan).
monitoring of PAs. ii) Diversion of Central assistance – in
iv) Unscientific estimation of tiger population absence of proper funding mechanism.
– Grossly inflated because of defective iii) Earmarking of funds necessary so that it is
methodology. Also lacks transparency. not diverted for non-forestry/non-wildlife
v) Size of the breeding tiger population activities.
depends on good protection/adequate iv) Delay in disbursement and utilization of
preybase, less disturbance and adequate funds – Late release of funds results in it
water availability. either being misutilised or remaining
vi) Independent scientific researchers unutilized because it is not possible to use
discouraged, even harassed. it before the financial year ends on the 31st
vii) Poor management of the area (habitat, March of that particular year.
animals, people tourism etc.). Should v) Inadequate delegation of financial powers
include independent ecological audit and – purchases etc.
monitoring. vi) No funds for intelligence gathering.

PART II

SOLUTIONS

I. MANAGE THE PROTECTED AREA WITH to be shifted before completion of tenure

COMPETENT OFFICIALS SO THAT only in exceptional cases with reasons to
PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED be recorded and communicated along with
transfer orders.
i) Prepare a panel of officials who have vii) Like some of the specialised government
evinced keen interest in wildlife – at the agencies the tenure may be extendable in
level of Field Director (Conservator of deserving cases – no cap need be fixed.
Forests)/ Deputy Conservator of Forest viii) Eligibility for in situ promotion to ensure
level), A.C.F. and RFO – Make a small continuity.
beginning – say with 10 Field Directors, 25 ix) Special pay and facilities for officials
ACF s, 50-100 RFOs and then increase the posted in the field.
numbers. x) Mechanism for swiftly fixing
ii) The panel to be drawn up by the Ministry accountability and responsibility against
of Environment & Forests in consultation lax/corrupt/defaulting officials.
with independent experts and State
Governments. The detailed procedure and II. SENSITISE THE CENTRE AND STATE
standards for this purpose to be laid down ADMINISTRATION TO THE NEEDS OF THE
by the National Committee headed by the TIGER
Prime Minister (refer para II (i)).
iii) The empanelled officers may be i) A National Tiger Management Committee,
considered for posting in any of the at the Central level, under the
premier PAs within his home cadre and in Chairmanship of the Prime Minister with
other States (on State to State deputation representatives of the Ministries of
basis). Environment and Forests, Home, Finance,
iv) In addition to forest officers, the panel may Tribal Welfare, Rural Development and the
include non-government experts and Planning Commission as well as
willing officers from other services on independent experts as members should be
deputation. Lateral induction may also be constituted to provide policy input and
resorted to. inject innovative reforms in the system.
v) Extensive training on a continuous basis to The said Committee, wherever required,
empanelled officials. may intervene to provide the requisite
vi) Security of tenure to be ensured – officials political and administrative inputs and

170 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

support at the Central/State level. The viii) Projects like eco-development etc. should
Central Committee will regularly interact not be handled by the Forest Department
with the State Committee chaired by the whose sole job must be focused on
Chief Minister. protection.
ii) A High Powered Committee under the ix) The environmental impact of all
Chairmanship of the Chief Minister with commercial and developmental projects
the Forest Minister, Chief Secretary, proposed to be undertaken in and around
Secretaries looking after Departments of the tiger’s habitat needs to be thoroughly
Forests, Home, Finance and Planning, scrutinized by experts before being
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and cleared.
Chief Wildlife Warden as members to be x) The impact of externally aided projects in
constituted immediately for taking the field of wildlife conservation and
decision for filling up vacant posts, protection has by and large been negative
imparting training to the front line staff, and therefore should be discouraged.
providing incentives to the officials,
improving service conditions and facilities III. PREVENT DESTRUCTION OF THE TIGER’S
and the deploying of armed police in HABITAT
sensitive areas in times of crisis. This
Committee will also deal with other i) Settlement/acquisition of rights in the PAs
administrative issues such as empowering under the provisions of the Wild Life
the use of fire arms, providing uniforms, (Protection) Act, 1972 should be
patrolling equipment, wireless networks, undertaken on priority.
vehicles, and the allocation and release of ii) A time bound programme for the
adequate funds for wildlife conservation relocation of villages from within the
with adequate delegation of financial protected areas should be prepared and
powers, etc. implemented at the earliest. The
iii) To accord priority and focus on the rehabilitation plan should ensure that the
conservation and protection issues, a compensation package is the best possible,
separate department for Forest and liberal and attractive so that it leads to a
Wildlife should immediately be carved out better quality of life. As far as possible the
within the Ministry of Environment and relocation process should be outsourced
Forests. It may be mentioned that during with the Forest Department playing only a
the meeting of the National Board of catalytical role.
Wildlife held on 17.3.2005 under the iii) Since the above matter is of critical
Chairmanship of the Prime Minister, there importance, the State Committee under the
was a general consensus for a separate Chairmanship of the Chief Minister should
Department for Forest and Wildlife. regularly review the all round progress.
iv) Immediate implementation of the National The funds for this purpose may be made
Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016). Funds to available by the MoEF, Ministry of Tribal
be earmarked for the implementation of Affairs, Ministry of Rural Development
this Plan. and the State Governments. Other sources
v) The Wildlife Crime Bureau should like the Compensatory Afforestation Fund
immediately be made effective preferably may also be tapped.
before 1st September, 2005, and even after iv) Prevention and eviction of encroachments
it is set up the CBI should continue to play a should be given emphasis.
lead role. v) The villagers in and around the PAs should
vi) A Central Forest and Wildlife Protection be effectively involved in conservation and
Force should be constituted by drawing protection of the area. Some of the
officials on deputation from Police, CRPF, suggested measures are :
CISF , ITBP , etc. – This fully equipped and a) creation of village patrols where
trained force can be deployed at short local villagers are trained, given
notice to any trouble spot. monthly remuneration and like
vii) The officials posted in PAs should not be home guards can be effectively
used for election or any other non- deployed. A specially designed
protection work. Similarly the vehicles course may be drawn up for their
belonging to the PA shall not be diverted for training;
any work relating to election or other duties. b) use of local villagers for water and

Annexures 171
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

soil conservation, fire protection, as habitats in forests outside the protected

tourist guides and interpreters and areas.
in any other P.A. based activity. vii) Priority needs to be accorded for
Suitable training courses for these identification and protection of wildlife
activities may be drawn up; corridors for the movement of
c) networking local people in tigers/wildlife from one PA/habitat to
intelligence gathering against timber another.
mafia and poachers; viii) Imposing a cess on hotels and tour
d) build up close rapport with forest operators who depend on the PA for their
staff and local anti-poaching patrols business. The cess will be determined by
(to use their traditional knowledge the State Committee under the
of the area) to track poachers; Chairmanship of the Chief Minister. The
e) impart training for their cess can be used for the welfare of the local
involvement in scientific research population such as schooling, medicine,
(special courses that are site specific etc.
to the ongoing research can be ix) efforts should be made to provide alternate
conducted); routes to the existing roads/National/State
f) the revenue from tourism collected Highways passing through the PAs which
by the Park Authorities may be are playing havoc with the tiger and
used for the establishment of a wildlife.
Village Trust Fund for engaging the xi) Mining (new leases as well as renewal
local population in the protection cases), hotels and resorts and other
of the PA – to be administered by activities which have a negative impact on
the village elders. Some of this the habitat and wildlife should not be
revenue could also go towards staff permitted within the safety zone (say one
welfare; km. from the boundary).
g) the local population may play an xi) Protected Areas affected by
effective role in conservation and insurgency/naxalites and which have good
protection of the area by forests and tiger habitats require special
establishing Management attention through special measures. – Both
Boards/Committees for the PA Central and State Committees will deal
consisting of representatives of the with this issue.
villages, Park officials and locally xii) Under no circumstances mining,
based conservation NGOs and agriculture, regularization of
scientists. This Management encroachment and other activities which
Board/Committee may meet every lead to fragmentation/destruction of the
three months in order to encourage a habitat should be permitted.
transparent and participatory
approach towards management and Many of the above activities can be
thereafter will regularly send its prohibited/regulated under the existing provisions of
recommendations to the State Level the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and also by
Committee; issuing of notification under the Environment
h) rehabilitation of hunting tribes, (Protection) Act by the MoEF.
traditional poachers living in and
around PAs should be done on a IV. STRENGTHEN RESEARCH AND TRAINING
priority basis (as was done in ACROSS TIGER HABITATS
Periyar). One way of rehabilitating
them is by involving them in anti- i) A Wildlife Management Manual/Code
poaching works which gives rich should be prepared in a time bound
dividend. They could also be manner by the MoEF with the assistance of
resettled away from forest areas and the Wildlife Institute of India. It should be
then given alternatives for their ensured that every PA is managed as per the
livelihood. This would need to be prescriptions of the Management Pan for
closely monitored; that particular P.A. The Manual would be
vi) Specific prescriptions for tiger protection akin to a handbook that provides detailed
should be incorporated in the Working information for the better management of
Plans in respect of identified tiger rich the P.A.

172 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ii) An important component of the V. PROVIDE TIMELY FUNDS TO ALL

Management will be a detailed SPECIALLY DESIGNATED TIGER AREAS
prescription for tourism, managing it and
ensuring both respect for the tiger and the The Central assistance, instead of being routed
visitor. through the normal State Government
iii) A National Level Research Advisory machinery, should be released directly to
Committee with independent experts and the field staff on the existing pattern of release
institutional members may be constituted of funds by the MoEF through the Forest
to give inputs/frame guidelines from time Development Agency (FDA). This will not
to time regarding: (this should be an only ensure timely release and utilization of
autonomous body free from government funds but responsibility and accountability can
shackles so that they render independent also be easily fixed for non-utilization and
and objective advise fearlessly) misuse of funds. A system of concurrent
a) tiger census methodology (to be financial audit as well as ecological audit should
decided after a complete review by be put in place
all scientists associated with this
especially because of the serious VI. LEGAL SUPPORT
limitations of the total counts in the
pug mark methodology); i) Legal cells headed by experienced legal
b) research, monitoring and ecological officers should be set up in each State for
audit; and imparting training to officers/staff in
c) issue of transparent guidelines for investigative skills, collection of
Research Projects including evidenced, preparation of charge
redressal of grievances sheets/complaints etc.
expeditiously. ii) The Legal Cell will vigorously and closely
iv) Revamp the course and curriculum at the pursue and monitor serious cases of
IGNFA which imparts training to IFS poaching etc. They shall in such cases
probationers and also organize special appoint special counsels/senior lawyers so
refresher courses for the serving IFS that cases are taken to their logical end
officers. without delay.
v) A full fledged Centre for Wildlife Studies iii) Regional Forensic Laboratories to be
consisting of (a) forest officials and other established and recognized under the
experts on deputation to the Indira Gandhi provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
National Forest Academy; (b) visiting The opinion/reports of these laboratories
faculty consisting of reputed national level are accepted as evidence in the Courts.
experts; and (c) experts from the Wildlife iv) Provide prompt and effective legal support
Institute of India, etc. should be to officers/staff facing harassment on
established in the Indira Gandhi National account of false retaliatory cases filed
Academy of Administration. against them.
vi) The Centre for Wildlife Studies in v) Should also expedite cases (departmental
coordination with the MoEF should be or criminal) against officials by pursuing
made responsible for the preparation of the them vigorously.
curriculum and imparting training for the
IFS probationers, conducting refresher VII. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
courses and specialized studies/research.,
etc. In some areas, India’s tiger habitats are
vii) This Centre may also be used for providing contiguous across national boundaries with
specialized refresher courses/training Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Mynamar.
programme for other officials (from Forest These transboundary issues need to be taken up
Department as well as other Departments). at bilateral level as also at SAARC meetings so that
viii) A detailed annual presentation can be a joint/special task force could be set up for
made to NBWL/Prime Minister’s Committee better protection and management of these areas.
by the National Advisory Board of Research This will greatly help the present population of
in order to apprise him each year regarding tigers that move to and fro across international
the prevailing state of affairs. borders.

Annexures 173
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

DISSENT NOTE

ANNEXURE-B

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE REGARDING COEXISTENCE OF PEOPLE IN THE

PROTECTED AREAS – DRAFT PREPARED BY VALMIK THAPAR

BASIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY modification of its order dated 14.2.2000 to

enable the legal right holders to enjoy the
i) The areas falling within the National Parks benefits in the sanctuary and in the areas
should be made inviolate. People living in where final notifications have not been
these areas should be relocated and their issued. The CEC has filed its report dated
rights acquired under the WLPA. If any 4th November, 2004, which is under
village is not found of strategic importance consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme
within the National Park the boundary of Court. The MoEF may intervene in the said
the park should be altered to exclude such I.A. and modification of the said order.
village. The excluded village may be viii) A number of sanctuaries have been
included in the adjoining sanctuary, if notified which include non-strategic areas
any. Needless to say that rehabilitation of very low conservation value with many
package should be the best available and villages. A time bound exercise of
attractive. rationalizing the boundaries of such
ii) Relocation from the sanctuary should be sanctuaries should be undertaken by the
restricted to the minimum possible taking MoEF in consultation with the States. This
into account the conservation value of the process will result in the exclusion of
area i.e. the relocation should be restricted many areas. This will be of great help in
to the area which are absolutely vital for mitigating the sufferings of a large number
the protection of tigers and are to be treated of people.
as “core area” for tiger conservation. ix) Even in non-strategic areas of the
iii) A detailed time bound plan for relocation sanctuaries, if the villagers volunteer to
of villages identified should be prepared shift out, such shifting should be
and funds required should be made facilitated.
available at the earliest. x) The villages from the sanctuaries may be
iv) It should be made clear that the existing allowed to be shifted into reserve
provisions of the W.L. (P) Act. allows the forest/protected forest/unclassed forest
right holders to carry out their legitimate without payment of compensatory
activities such as agriculture, grazing, etc. Afforestation, NPV, etc. For this purpose a
v) Pursuant to Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order simplified procedure for granting approval
dated 14.2.2000 in IA No. 548, no under the F.C. Act should be formulated.
harvesting/removal of forest produce xi) For the villagers which remain inside the
including minor forest produce is sanctuary, innovative interventions within
permissible from national the framework of the law and the Supreme
parks/sanctuaries. Court’s order should be introduced to
vi) It may be clarified that the WLPA allows ensure that the bona fide livelihood needs
making of alternate arrangements for of the local people are taken care of. These
making available fuel, fodder, and other may include :
forest produce to the existing right holders a) preference in employment in
(Section 18-A(2)). Section 29 of WLPA various government departments;
provide that any forest produce required b) engagement in water and soil
from the sanctuaries should be distributed conservation and other forest
for meeting the personal bona fide needs of management measures;
the people living in and around the c) involvement in village protection
sanctuaries (and not for any commercial force;
purpose). d) passing on part of cess collected
vii) In view of above legal provisions, the MoEF from nearby hotels;
may move the Hon’ble Supreme Court for e) employment in private sector hotels

174 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

and in other developmental projects (Protection) Act, 1972 provides for meeting all
around the park; the concerns and requirements of the local people.
f) tourist guides, trackers, intelligence The only issue is its effective implementation,
gatherers, etc. therefore, there is no need for any review/revision of
The above list is indicative and not the Act.
exhaustive. The management plan should The MoEF’s directions are in consonance and in
include a detailed prescription for compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders and
involving the local population in the park therefore cannot/should not be withdrawn. It may be
management, mitigating man-animal mentioned that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradip
conflict with a view to improve their Krishen v/s UOI (AIR 1996 SC 2040)+ has specifically
quality of life. directed to complete settlement proceedings
The existing provisions of the Wild Life expeditiously.

DISSENT NOTE

ANNEXURE -C

OBJECTION BY MR. VALMIK THAPAR – MEMBER TIGER TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE REPORT

Mr. Valmik Thapar Member of the Task Force proposed scheme. Their critique covers the issue of
has submitted the following note of decent in the very design of the surveys in proposed stages,
relation to the recommendations on approaches to be practical problems in implementing many of the
adopted for monitoring tiger populations in the survey methods in field conditions, problems of
future. analysis as well as with the demonstrated example
The past history of Project Tiger is strewn with from Satpura-Maikal Pilot Project which actually has
failures to reform the monitoring system due to a lack not implemented the occupancy estimation
of attention to detail and ignoring of inputs form approach. Given this Valmik Thapar strongly
scientists seriously engaged with tiger conservation believes that a technical panel of experts proposed by
issues. the Task Force should examine all these aspects of
Since then the proposed scheme has been the proposed methodology before it is implemented
thoroughly examined and critiqued by leading in order to resolve the problems that are admitted to
carnivore ecologists who have specialized in exist with this protocol. This should be done within
population survey methodologies for decades at the a time frame of just 3 months. Such a process
specific request of the Task Force. These in put will ensure the removal of any flaws and errors
shave come from Dr. Ullhas Karanth, Dr. Raghu which may be present and prevent costly
Chundawath, Dr. M. D. Madhusudan, Dr. AJT expenditures from taking place before the method
Johnsingh, Dr. SP Goel, Dr. Yoganand (the last has been vetted. This safeguard will be vital to this
three are from the Wildlife Institute of India). All new step we are taking.
these analysis, have endorsed the broad idea of Therefore Valmik Thapar disagrees with the
Project Tiger taking up countrywide distribution view that the protocol regarding tiger estimation
surveys of tiger under a new sampling-based should be implemented immediately and even before
paradigm (instead of total count censuses). But the technical panel has a chance to examine and
they all have pointed out several flaws in the improve it.

Annexures 175
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

DISSENT NOTE

ANNEXURE- D

SPECIAL NOTE

From: Valmik Thapar also been provided for patrolling (details of this
Member – TIGER TASK FORCE (TTF) can be made available from the State as an
example of what can be done as a preventive step
To: The Chairman and all other Members, for other States to follow).
for the meeting of the Task Force on 29th April, 2005.
DISSEMINATE ALL INFORMATION. This is
Date: 28th April, 2005 vital as a case study so that everyone realises
what happened and can learn a lesson from it to
The Tiger Task Force (TTF) was born from a crisis prevent repeats. This case study should be sent
that resulted in the extinction of the tigers in Sariska across India as an example of what can happen.
and Kela Devi Sanctuaries. The Prime Minister
described the state of affairs as the worst crisis of WHAT HAPPENED?
wildlife since the inception of the Project Tiger.
Let’s not forget as far as Sariska is concerned the
OBJECTIVE Director of the Reserve provided an early
warning in his census report on 25th May, 2004.
The objective of this note is to spell out short term It remained unheeded to by the Chief Wildlife
and long term measures that will help save wild Warden of Rajasthan and he only communicated
tigers. I presume that is the objective of the TTF. it or part of it on August 17th, 2004 to the
Directorate of Project Tiger who did not react
till February 2005 after each tiger had been
SHORT TERM MEASURES wiped out. I quote below from it.

(1) Deployment of additional Home Guards and On 25-4-2004 the Field Director of Sariska
Armed Police in different tiger reserves across reported to the Chief Wildlife Warden of
India which are facing serious problems. This is Rajasthan and stated “on the basis of the
an essential preventive measure pre-monsoon available evidence and on ocular analysis of the
2005. pugmarks and movement of tigers the team
(a) Manas Tiger Reserve, Assam reached a rough estimate that the number of
(b) Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Arunachal tigers were between 16 and 18………..Since this
Pradesh estimate is quite different from that of last year’s
(c) Simlipal Tiger Reserve, Orissa census and could lead to
(d) Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Bihar controversy…………Experts should be called to
(e) Palamau Tiger Reserve, Jharkhand carry out examination of the evidence.”
(f) Nagarjuna Tiger Reserve, Andhra Pradesh
(g) Indravati Tiger Reserve, Chattisgarh However, the Chief Wildlife Warden ignored this
(h) Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh letter and on the 17th August, 2004 sent a letter to
(i) Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh the Director, Project Tiger stating for Sariska
(j) Tadoba Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra Tiger Reserve has 16-18 tigers. There is then an
(k) Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Uttar Pradesh ‘asterix’ on this that says: “Due to bad weather
most of the Pugmark Impression Pads were
(2) Ranthambhore and Sariska Tiger Reserve are not damaged and it obstructed effective trekking
on this list as the Government of Rajasthan have and collection of evidence.”
already taken essential steps of deploying more
than 300 Home Guards and armed Police on the Why did Project Tiger in Delhi not reject the
periphery as a precaution against armed census and order a new one?
intruders. All regular raids are being conducted
against possible poachers and unwanted (3) It is also understood that a Tiger Assessment
elements. A full infrastructure of vehicles has Report was submitted by the Wildlife Institute of

176 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

India after a 10 day site visit with two senior ”The alleged disappearance of 18 tigers from
biologists and eight Ph.D. students. They also Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve is misleading and
found no evidence of tigers and shockingly not true. There is a daily monitoring system in
found a wild boar stumbling round dragging a place wherein details of tigers utilizing different
tiger trap in its legs. This was March and you parts of the habitat within the reserve are
can imagine how many steel traps were spread recorded.”
across the heart of this tiger reserve.
The idea of daily monitoring of tigers without
(4) It is understood that the CBI report on Sariska radio collars in an absurdity. While on the 23rd
talks of: February, 2005 Director, Project Tiger was
making these comments on a site visit to
a) Grossly inflated census figures over 10 Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve the Deputy
years related to the maximum sustainable Director, Project Tiger, Sawai Madhopur (buffer)
population – 80% margin of error. had on the 3rd February, 2005 (20 days earlier)
b) 75% of staff are untrained and unsuitable sent a letter to the Field Director saying that in a
for extensive on foot responsibilities. large component of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve
c) More than 3000 hectares of the tiger reserve – which is Kela Devi Sanctuary – there was no
is encroached. evidence of tigers, pugmarks or faecal matter. On
d) Complete lack of monitoring and 16th March, 2005 he again sent a letter to Field
astonishment regarding the fact that NO Director stating that after intensive patrolling he
intelligence was gathered on poachers – could not find anything and finally the Field
glaring failure of intelligence by forest staff. Director sent a letter to chief Wildlife Warden on
e) No effort to effectively patrol or maintain 31st March, 2005 saying that the tigers in Kela
communication with villagers. Devi were down from 6 to 0. Local extinction.

We must examine this example – it must be (b) “The Project Tiger Directorate receives
reflective of several areas in India. If these updating periodically from tiger reserves on
factors are true for other areas there is little important events / happenings, as well as
chance of saving tigers. Also examine why the mortality of wild animals due to poaching /
CBI was able to find all this in 2 days and Project natural deaths, complemented by factual
Tiger ‘not at all’. This will be the only way to information gathered during frequent field
understand the root of the problem that afflicts visits of MoEF officials. Therefore, there is
our tiger reserves. We need to send the Sariska no collapse of any warning system.”
case history to all our Project Tiger reserves and
other protected areas so that such a debacle is “The alleged decline of tiger counts across the
never repeated. country is only a speculation at this stage by NGOs
and media.” Is this why the Deputy Director’s
If the CBI can get into Predator-Prey letters of 3rd February and 16th March, 2005 were
density ratios, statistics and census analysis not acted on? Or is it because there was no
what stopped Project Tiger doing this in earlier knowledge of them? Both are terrible examples of
years? monitoring or early warning mechanisms!

(5) We also need to study the Kela Devi example It is obvious that from both the examples of
where in 600 odd sq. kms of this sanctuary (a Sariska and Ranthambhore that one part of
part of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve) in Project tiger (the field) did not know what the
February 2005 there were written records other part of Project Tiger (Delhi) was doing or
stating that for moths there were no signs of any vice verca. There is obviously no daily
tigers. In fact in February this was monitoring, let alone communication of it to
communicated to the Field Director of Project Tiger, Delhi. Project Tiger (Delhi)
Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve. appears to live in the dark about most matters.

Yet when the Additional D.G. (Wildlife) and the Analyse both these examples. They must be
Director, Project Tiger went to Ranthambhore symptomatic of reserves across India. We need
Tiger Reserve for a site visit immediately after to find ways to prevent such horrific events.
Sariska (23rd February, 2005) what did they write
in their site visit report? (6) We must also look at the role of activist NGO’s both
They wrote: in Sariska and Kela Devi. In Sariska Rajendra

Annexures 177
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

Singh’s Tarun Bharat Sangh was deeply involved the media regarding threats of poaching, illegal
with wildlife matters. They had in the late 1990’s woodcutting by timber mafias and encroachment
held a Bagh Bachavo Yata and have stated that on forest land by commercial groups including
they had sent some warning of the crisis of 2004 to mining mafias.
the forest department. In Kela Devi another NGO
had played a role in preventing livestock from (10) All relevant reports, CBI, WII, Project Tiger
outer areas to come in and it was a much quoted assessments and evaluations, earlier reports i.e.
example of people’s participation in wildlife Wildlife Crime Bureau, Subramanyam
protection. Arun Jindal from the Society for Committee, affidavits of MoEF to the Supreme
Sustainable Development based in Karauli had for Court, Supreme Court orders to be provided for
years been supporting a process of participation. the reference of the Committee immediately.
So had Rajendra Singh. Let’s learn from their The CBI report will be essential reading for every
failures – since the tiger has gone from both areas. Park Director across India.

(7) Co-opting as a special invitee the head of the (11) Activate all State Wildlife Advisory Boards to
investigation in Sariska Shri B.K. Sharma from convene meetings since these institutions need to
the CBI and asking him to make a presentation be alerted to the gravity of the problem and
both on Sariska and other areas in terms of thereby take necessary steps to diffuse the
poaching and illegal trade. problems. These boards are also like early
warning systems that can help to detect other
(8) Provide a mandate to the CBI to continue problems.
investigations into poaching, illegal trade etc. all
over India and this will be an immediate (12) Immediate implementation of the new Wildlife
deterrent to the accelerating activities of Crime Prevention and Control Bureau as endorsed
poachers. This will have to be recommended by by the National Board of Wildlife on the 17th
the Prime Minster. March, 2005 meeting. This is immediately needed
to prevent the illegal trade in tiger derivatives and
(9) Immediate educational awareness campaign in minimise the activities of poachers.

Extracts from

REPORT (UNCORRECTED) OF THE DEPARTMENT –RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS

(139th & 146th Reports)

PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON THE 25TH APRIL, 2005

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON THE 25TH APRIL, 2005)

“The Committee expresses its serious concern over forces must be constituted to combat the menace of
the sudden disappearance of the Tigers from Sariska poaching of wildlife.
Tiger Reserve. The Committee feels that the Moreover, the Ministry should also involve the
negligence of Forest staff coupled with the large scale villagers living in and around National Parks / Tiger
poaching has cost the country dear. Conditions in reserves to prevent the poaching as they are aware of
most of the national parks are more or less same, the tentative movement of the poachers but because
posing a clear danger to protected animal species. of poachers’ threats or any other compulsion, they
Poaching is not a new phenomenon but the poachers refrain from coming out openly to help the forest
are now more advanced with latest weapons and Department to catch the poachers. The Committee
very powerful communication network, making the strongly recommends that all vacant positions
lackadaisically managed tiger reserves easy picking. should be filled immediately and at no time any tiger
In contrast, forest guards are usually equipped with a reserve in the country should be left with the junior
wooden stick and most of the times without any officers.”
means of communication. Taking note of this “The Committee notes the reply of the Ministry
alarming situation, the Committee is of considered and is strongly of the opinion that Ministry’s
opinion that a Special Task Force at the central or efforts have in no way improved the state of
state level with the involvement of Para-military “project tiger” and management of tiger parks in the

178 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

country as sadly reflected in the increased provisions, Ministry should evolve a mechanism to
incidence of poaching of tigers and disappearance implement its plans / steps emphatically.”
of a section of wild cats from strategic areas in “The Committee observes that despite various
the country. The Ministry needs to undertake schemes of the Ministry, effective patrolling of
complete review of its programmes and plug the wildlife is almost missing as is evident from rampant
loopholes, where necessary to implement them poaching. In the recent past, the Committee during
effectively.” its study visits to some Tiger Reserves / Wildlife
“The Committee fees that the Ministry has not Sanctuaries was anguished to see the forest rangers
taken much action in pursuance of its equipped with a wooden stick and roaming on feet
recommendation for protecting and developing whereas poachers, in contrast, are believed to be
wildlife parks. The Ministry has informed only equipped with latest communication network,
about Tigers and their habitats. Nothing has been modern weapons and vehicles. In view thereof, any
mentioned about other animals like elephant, lion, financial assistance for the wildlife protection which
rhino, etc. Even achievements of the programmes was made has not been successfully utilised in the
under “Project Tiger” have come under scrutiny as past. The Committee reiterates that interested NGOs
evident from recent news reports that tigers have should be encouraged to provide latest transport and
disappeared from the Sariska and Ranthambhore communication facilities to the staff responsible for
Tiger Reserves. The Committee feels that for proper the protection of wildlife parks. The Committee is
development and protection of the wildlife parks, also of the opinion that a “Special Task Force” must
emphasis should be given on anti-poaching camps, be constituted to combat the menace of poaching of
mobile squads, capacity building of frontline staff in wildlife.”
intelligence gathering, detection and successful “The Committee feels that by merely including
prosecution of cases and providing necessary endangered species of animals in Schedule I of the
infrastructure to them.” Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, may not be enough.
“The Committee is of the view that quoting The Ministry should also take some stringent
statutory provisions is not the proper action expected measures along with enforcing the provisions of the
from the Ministry. What is more important is proper Act for their survival. The Committee would have
and holistic implementation / enforcement of these appreciated if the Ministry had come forward with a
provisions. These provisions / guidelines themselves comprehensive plan of action for preserving the
cannot act as a deterrent. With the support of these aforesaid species.”

LONG TERM MEASURES and other wildlife – Members of Parliament to be

present – slide presentation to be made. We
(1) Discussions on creating a dedicated Ministry for must realise that saving the tiger and forest is a
Forests and Wildlife by bifurcating the present state subject and therefore Chief Ministers will
Ministry of Environment and Forests. have to be inspired to act.

(2) Creating a dedicated and specially trained (6) Encouraging the role of scientific research and
National Park Service meant to govern and its recommendations in the management of our
administer 100 of the best protected areas in wilderness.
India. This service must allow inter-state
transfers. (7) Encouraging the protection of our wilderness
areas by local communities / tribals / forest
(3) Opening fresh recruitment for all forest staff on a dwellers who can be fully trained in special
priority basis just like the Police and Army, and schools for this purpose and for other
fill up all vacancies. requirements of forests and wildlife management
i.e. eco-tourism etc. Even if 10 people each are
(4) Extra allocation of finances by Planning trained in one Park and the programme started in
Commission for the forest and wildlife sector 20 Parks within 6 months we will have 200
especially in the area of protection. A meeting people engaged in protection. And this figure
will be essential with Deputy Chairman of can be tripled over the years.
Planning Commission.
(8) Creating a Manual or Code of Conduct and
(5) A meeting between the Prime Minister and all Procedure for all protected area managers that
chief Ministers regarding the crisis of the tiger becomes their ‘Bible’ to follow in the field and

Annexures 179
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

includes systems for early warning and detection WHY DO TIGERS DIE AT THE HANDS OF
of problems etc. POACHERS OR OTHERS?

(9) A review of the entire structure of Project Tiger (a) for revenge against livestock kills;
with a view to overhaul it and create a Project (b) by accident as poachers try for ungulates;
Tiger Division in MoEF that is streamlined, (c) by intent and for commerce be it skin or
efficient and effective especially in a crisis bones;
situation. There must be a way to have better (d) or orchestrated by mining mafias or those
communication from the field to Project Tiger who want to denotify protected areas and
(Delhi) so that Kela Devi’s and Sariskas’ don’t destroy habitats.
happen.
The above note spells out that if the climate of
(10) Financial allocations and disbursement of Sariska or Ranthambhore prevails then there could
money – how to create a rapid flow and prevent be a wipe out of tigers across India. To prevent their
non-utilisation of funds etc. death by poachers or others we need early
implementation of both short term and long term
(11) Corridor connectivity from one tiger area to measures – This is the only way forward.
another is also vital for the prevention of habitat
fragmentation and vital existing corridors must
be identified for protection. Valmik Thapar

180 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ANNEXURE-III Response of the chairperson, Tiger

Task Force, to note of dissent
■ SUNITA NARAIN

30.07.2005
Valmik Thapar
Member, Tiger Task Force
19 Kautilya Marg
Chanakyapuri 110021

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

Annexures 181
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

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

182 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

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

Annexures 183
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-IV Expert consultations based on terms

of reference of the Tiger Task Force
The Tiger Task Force had invited a wide range of experts from different fields for consultation to
learn from their experiences and insights, and to develop strategies for the future based on these
learnings. They were also asked to provide any papers that they have written and, if possible, give
written submissions on the different aspects that the Task Force has been asked to examine. All
reports of the consultations will be available on the website: www.projecttiger.nic.in

The Task Force had held these consultations at New Delhi, Nagpur and Bangalore.

New Delhi consultation, May 18, 2005: on conservation of the tiger, problems of poaching and
enforcement

1. B K Sharma, deputy director (admn), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Block No 3, 4th Floor,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003
2. Belinda Wright, executive director, Wildlife Protection Society of India, M-52, Greater Kailash
Part I, New Delhi 110 048
3. Ashok Kumar, senior advisor and trustee, Wildlife Trust of India, C644, First Floor, New
Friends colony, New Delhi 110065
4. Amlan Dutta, assistant programme officer, Wildlife Trust of India, C-644, First Floor, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi 110065
5. Manoj Mishra, Peace Institute, 178-F, Pocket-IV, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi 110 091
6. P K Sen, director, Tiger and Wildlife Programme, WWF 172B, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003
7. Madhu Sarin, environment journalist, 48, Sector 4, Chandigarh 160 001
8. A K Mukerjee, former director general of forests, I-1625, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi 110 019
9. B S Bonal, director, National Zoological Park, Mathura Road, New Delhi
10. Harsh Vardhan, honorary general secretary, Tourism and Wildlife Society of India, C-158A,
Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004, Rajasthan

New Delhi consultation, May 19, 2005: methodology of tiger counting, forecasting, professional
audits of wildlife, research guidelines and access to information

1. Ullas Karanth, director, Wildlife Conservation Society-India Program, 823, 13th Cross, 7th Block
West, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 082, Karnataka
2. Raghu S Chundawat, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
3. Y V Jhala, head, Department of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Wildlife Institute of
India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
4. Qamar Qureshi, faculty, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
5. Ravi Chellam, programme officer, United Nations Development Programme, 55, Lodi Estate,
P O Box 3059, New Delhi 110 003
6. Vasant Saberwal, programme officer, Department of Environment and Development, Ford
Foundation, 55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003
7. Asad R Rahmani, director, Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House
Dr Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023, Maharashtra
8. A J T Johnsingh, head, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal

184 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

9. Surendra Prakash Goyal, scientist, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal

The Task Force also met John Sellers, senior enforcement officer, CITES, and Debbie Bank, senior
campaigner, Environmental Investigation Agency, 62/63 Upper street, London N10NY

Nagpur consultation, June 12, 2005: on issues connected to local communities and tiger
conservation

1. Ashish Kothari, coordinator, Kalpavriksh - Environment Action Group, Apt. 5 Shree Datta
Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra
2. Bittu Sehgal, editor, Sanctuary magazine, 146, Pragati Industrial Estate, N M Joshi Marg,
Mumbai, Maharashtra
3. Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, Vrikshamitra, Shende Plot, Ramnagar, Chandrapur 442 401,
Maharashtra
4. Shailendra J Chaudhuri, 38 Manish Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra
5. Motiram, Hosangabad, Madhya Pradesh
6. Ashish Goswami, People for Animals, Gopuri, Wardha 442 001, Maharashtra
7. Manojit Saha, Deccan Herald, 303, Tulsiamich, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra
8. Bhurelal Gandhi, coordinator, Tawa Matsya Sangh, Kesla, Hosangabad, Madhya Pradesh
9. Sunil, village and PO Kesala, Hosangabad, Madhya Pradesh
10. Milind Pariwakam, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, Karnataka
11. Devaji Navalu Topha, Adivasi Mitra, gram sabha, village Lekha Mendha, Post Heti, Tehsil
Dhanora, Gadchiroli 442 606, Maharashtra
12. Sulabha Chakravarty, coordinator, Green Hope, 46, Om Sai Building, Anant Nagar,
Nagpur 440013, Maharashtra
13. Anuradha Paul, executive editor, Green Hope; executive secretary, VED Council, 50, Anand
Palace, Dhantoli, Nagpur 440012, Maharashtra
14. Prafulla Bhamburkar, WWF-India, 6, Venkatesh Nagar, Khamla Road, Nagpur 25, Maharashtra
15. Uday Patel, honorary wildlife warden, D-71/1, Urjanagar, Chandigarh
16. Satish Gogulwar, convenor, Maharashtra State Participatory Forest Management Network,
Kurkheda, Gadchiroli 441 209, Maharashtra
17. Rahul Bais, Amhi Amachya Arogyasathi, c/o Ramesh Alome’s house, Plot No 21, near Sanjuba
School, Surve Layout, Nagpur 440014, Maharashtra
18. Shanker Patil, president, Adivasi Gram Vikas, Paryatak Margdarshak Aur Vanyajeev
Sanrakshan Samiti, PO Moharli, Taluka Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
19. Vinod Jambhule, Tiger Research and Conservation Trust, CTPS Urjanagar, E-233/6 Chandrapur,
Maharashtra
20. Pandurang Shrirame, PO Moharli, Taluka Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
21. Shilpa P Hande, Plot No. 4, Nagbhoomi Society, Chhatrapati Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra
22. Mohan, Rashtriya Van Shramjeevi Manch, 501, Lakshmi Apartments, Ravi Nagar Chowk,
Nagpur 440 033, Maharashtra
23. Ravishankar Bhure, Rashtriya Van Shramjeevi Manch, 9, Postal Audit Colony, Ramapratap
Nagar, Nagpur 440022, Maharashtra
24. Archana Singh, Lokmath Samachar, Pandit Jawaharlal Marg, Nagpur 440010, Maharashtra
25. Debi Goenka, Bombay Environmental Action Group, Kalbadevi Municipal School, # 54,
2nd Floor, Mumbai 400 002, Maharashtra
26. Poonam Dhanwatey, Tiger Research and Conservation Trust, Plot No 59-60, Shivneri,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010, Maharashtra
27. Harshawardhan Dhanwatey, Tiger Research and Conservation Trust, Plot No 59-60, Shivneri,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010, Maharashtra
28. Vijay Ghugey, Nature Science Club, 138, Kalpataru, Mahalaxminagar No 2, Manewada Road,

Annexures 185
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

Nagpur 440 024, Maharashtra

29. Rucha Ghate, SHODH: The Institute for Research and Development, 50, Puranik Layout, Bharat
Nagar, Nagpur 440033, Maharashtra
30. Gokuldas Shankar, Gedam, At. Botezari, Post Moharli, Taluka Bhadrawati, Chandrapur,
Maharashtra
31. Mahadev B. Kumre, At Botezari, PO Moharli, Taluk Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
32. Kanhu Shinde, At Botezari, PO Moharli, Taluk Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
33. Devrao V. Kannake, At Botezari, PO Moharli, Taluk Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
34. Vilas Shanker Kannake, At Botezari, PO Moharli, Taluk Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra
35. Murali Manohar Rahi, Main Road Gondiya, Gondiya, Maharashtra
36. Kundan Hate, vice president, Satpura Foundation, 86, Shivneri Appartments, Kanfadenagar,
Ring Road, Nagpur 440015, Maharashtra
37. Raj Kumar Khodecha, National Environment and Wildlife Society, Gondia, Maharashtra
38. P V Joseph, National Environment and Wildlife Society, Gondia, Maharashtra
39. Sunita Shukla, SRISHTI, 103, Mount Road, behind Hotel Upvan, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001,
Maharashtra
40. Raju Kasambe, 64, Vidya Vihar Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur 440 022, Maharashtra
41. Prakash Amte, Lokbiradari Prakalp, Hemalkasa, PO Bhamragad, Gadchiroli 442 710,
Maharashtra
42. Gopalrao Thosar, Vasundhara, 66, Ganesh Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur 440 022, Maharashtra
43. Kishore Rithe, Nisarg Sanrakshan Sanstha, Pratishtha, Bharat Nagar, Akoli Road, Near Sainagar
Jawal, Amravati 444 607, Maharashtra
44. Dilip Gode, secretary, Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society, Tidke Ashram, Ganeshpeth,
Nagpur 440 018, Maharashtra
45. Shripad Suklikar, president, Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society, Tidke Ashram,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, Maharashtra
46. Kusum Karnik, environmentalist, Bhimashankar Prakalp, At and PO Manchar,
Manchar 410 503, Maharashtra
47. V Chandra, Rashtriya Van Shramjeevi Manch, 5/87 Bharatnagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra
48. Kaustubh Pandharipande, Samvedana, Professor’s Colony, Karanja (Lad), Washim 444 105,
Maharashtra
49. Ramu Bhagwat, The Times of India
50. Mahesh Upadev, Saamana, Mumbai, Maharashtra
51. Rohini Kant Matey, The Hitavada, Wardha Road, PO Box No 201, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Bangalore consultation, June 21, 2005: on the measures to improve the methodology of tiger
counting and forecasting; suggest methods of transparent professional audit of wildlife parks; and
placing data on tiger conservation in the public domain

1. Anil Gore, professor of statistics, department of statistics, Pune University, Ganshkhind, Pune
411 007, Maharashtra
2. P S Roy, deputy director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Balanagar, Hyderabad 500 037,
Andhra Pradesh
3. Pushpa M Bhargava, ANVESHNA, Furqan Cottage, 12-13-100, Lane # 1, Street # 3, Tarnaka
Hyderabad 500 017, Andhra Pradesh
4. Kartik Shankar, fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE),
No 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
5. Sumati V, student, WCS, Bangalore, Karnataka
6. Shomita Mukherjee, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, Karnataka
7. Anindya Sinha, National Institute of Advanced Study, Indian Institute of Science campus,
Bangalore, Karnataka
8. M D Madhusudan, wildlife ecologist and trustee, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV
Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore, Karnataka

186 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

9. Soumya Prasad, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka

10. Aparajita Datta, senior scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam
Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
11. D V Girish, Nature Conservation Guild, Chickmagalur, Karnataka
12. Praveen Bhargav, managing trustee, Wildlife First, No.1235, 1st Floor, 26th A Main,
32nd G Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041, Karnataka
13. K M Chinappa, Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, 076/5 IV Cross Gokulam Park,
Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
14. Krishna Narain, Wildlife Watch, Bangalore, Karnataka
15. G Vishwanath Reddy, conservator of forests, 27/A Vanashree, Gokulam Main Road, V Mohalla,
Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
16. K N Murthy, Watershed Development Department, Vana Vikas Building, Malleswar,
Bangalore, Karnataka
17. R Sukumar, chairperson, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka
18. N Samba Kumar, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, Karnataka
19. Harshwardhan Dhanwatey, Tiger Research and Conservation Trust, Nagpur, Maharashtra
20. M C Vinay Kumar, 18Y 52nd B Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka
21. S Dhananjaya, Karnataka Forest Department
22. B Venkatesh, Karnataka Forest Department, Bandipur
23. K A Subramanium, National Centre for Biological Sciences, UAS-GKVK Campus Bellary Road,
Bangalore 560 065, Karnataka
24. Mahesh Rangarajan, independent researcher, 24 Samachar Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-I
Extension, Delhi 110 091
25. Jagadish Krishnaswamy, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, No 659,
5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
26. Milind Watve, Department of Microbiology, Babahasaheb Garware College, Karve Road, Pune,
Maharashtra
27. M K Surappa, honorary secretary, Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology,
Bangalore 7, Karnataka
28. Shivanna, secretary, Karnataka Biodiversity Board, Ground Floor, Vanavikas, 18th Cross
Malleshwaram, Bangalore 3, Karnataka
29. C Srinivasan, field director, Bandipur
30. P Anur Reddy, conservator forests (wildlife), Karnataka
31. A K Verma, chief wildlife warden, Karnataka
32. Jagmohan Sharma, Karnataka Forest Department
33. D Yatish Kumar, Karnataka Forest Department
34. Col C P Muthanna (retd), Coorg Wildlife Society

ANNEXURE-V The visits by Tiger Task Force

The Task Force members have undertaken field visits to a few tiger reserves in the country to
understand the management and the present status of these reserves. The members also visited the
Wildlife Institute of India to discuss with the officials the methodology of tiger estimation and
habitat monitoring. The visits were as follows:

1. Periyar Tiger Reserve, Thekkaddy and Sabarimala, Kerala

2. Pench Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra
3. Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh
4. Kanha Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh
5. Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan
6. Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan

Annexures 187
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-VIExperts requested to comment on

methodology of tiger estimation
The proposal from the Project Tiger directorate and the Wildlife Institute of India to review and
change the methodology for assessing tiger habitat and to estimate the numbers was sent to many
experts for their comments. The names of the experts are given below:

1. Aparajita Datta, senior scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation,3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam

Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
2. S P Goyal, scientist, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal (comments received)
3. Anil P Gore, professor of statistics, department of statistics, Pune University, Ganeshkhind,
Pune 411 007, Maharashtra (comments received)
4. A J T Johnsingh, dean, faculty of wildlife sciences, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag
No 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001 (comments received)
5. Jagdish Krishnaswamy, fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment ,
No 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
6. Sharad Lele, coordinator and senior fellow, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in
Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072, Karnataka
7. Kartik Shankar, fellow, and Mohammed Irfan Ullah, fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment, No 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
(comments received)
8. Ullas Karanth, director, Wildlife Conservation Society-India Program, 823, 13th Cross,
7th Block West, Jayanagar,’ Bangalore 560 082, Karnataka (comments received)
9. P S Roy, deputy director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad.500 037, Andhra
Pradesh (comments received)
10. M D Madhusudan, wildlife ecologist and trustee, Nature Conservation Foundation,
3076/5 IV Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore, Karnataka
11. T R Shankar Raman, wildlife scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV Cross,
Gokulam Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
12. R Sukumar, chairperson, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka
13. R S Chundawat, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001
(comments received)
14. B L Deekshatulu, ISRO visiting professor, University of Hyderabad, 10-3-123/3/1,
East Maredpally, Secunderabad-500 026
15. Ravi Chellam, programme officer, United Nations Development Programme, 55, Lodi Estate,
PO Box 3059, New Delhi 11000
16. Asad R Rahmani, director, Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr Salim Ali
Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023, Maharashtra

188 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ANNEXURE-VII Suggestions received on the terms

of reference of Tiger Task Force
The Task Force had written to a number of experts and activists requesting them to send their ideas
and suggestions, based on the terms of reference. Many people had also written voluntarily to the
Task Force giving their suggestions and ideas. The Task Force is grateful to them for sending their
ideas and recommendations, contributing to our understanding of issues.

1. Praveen Bhargav, managing trustee, Wildlife First, No 1235, 1st Floor, 26th A Main,
32nd G Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041, Karnataka
2. S S Bist, director (PE) and IGF, ministry of environment and forests, Room No 126, Paryavaran
Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003
3. Aparajita Datta, senior scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam
Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
4. Rucha Ghate, SHODH: The Institute for Research and Development, 50, Puranik Layout, Bharat
Nagar, Nagpur 440 033, Maharashtra
5. Anil P Gore, professor of statistics, department of statistics, Pune University, Ganeshkhind,
Pune 411 007, Maharashtra
6. Radhika Johri, department of anthropology, York University, 2054 Vari Hall, 4700 Keele Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
7. Krithi K Karanth, doctoral student, Terborgh Lab Levine Science Research Center,
PO Box 90328, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham NC 27708
8. Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment,
No 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
9. Kusum Karnik/Anand Kapoor, environmentalists, Science of Conservation, Bhimashankar
Prakalp, At and PO Manchar, Manchar 410 503, Maharashtra
10. Sharad Lele, coordinator and senior fellow, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in
Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072, Karnataka
11. Kamal Naidu, chief conservator of forests, government of Andhra Pradesh, CCF Office,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
12. V B Sawarkar, director, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
13. V D Sharma, former PCCF & CWLW, Rajasthan
14. Tykee Malhotra, managing trustee, Sanskara Development Trust, F-328, Lado Sarai, Mehrauli,
New Delhi 110 030
15. V B Mathur, professor and head, department of protected area network, Wildlife Management
and Conservation Education, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
16. Ashish Kothari/Pankaj Sekhsaria, Kalpavriksh – Environment Action Group, Apt 5, Shree
Datta Krupa, 908, Decan Gymkhana, Pune 411 004, Maharashtra
17. Fateh Singh Rathore, vice chairperson, Tiger Watch, Ranthambhore, Rajasthan
18. Madhu Sarin, environment journalist, 48, Sector 4, Chandigarh 160 001, Punjab
19. Krishna Narain, Wildlife Watch, [email protected]
20. Qamar Qureshi, faculty, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
21. Sanjeeva Pandey, director, Great Himalayan National Park, Shamshi, Kullu 175 126, Himachal
Pradesh
22. Vinod Kumar Damodar, honorary animal welfare officer, Animal Welfare Board of India,
‘Breeze’, 5/2750-A, Behind Officers Club, Thiruthiyad, Calicut 673 004, Kerala

Annexures 189
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

23. M C Vinay Kumar, 18Y, 52nd B Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka
24. Charudutt Mishra, executive trustee, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5 IV Cross
Gokulam Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka
25. S C Dey, former director of wildlife conservation and secretary general, Global Tiger Forum,
A-269, 2nd Floor, Defence colony, New Delhi 110024
26. Debbie Banks, senior campaigner, Environmental Investigation Agency, 62-63 Upper Street,
London, N10NY
27. S K Ramalinge Gowde, president, IFS Association, Room No 538, Block B, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003
28. B S Thengdi, DyCF, Land Reccords, Nagpur, Maharashtra
29. A K Mukerji, former director general of forests, I-1625, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi 110019
30. Vaishaish Uppal/Raman Mehta/Shekhar Singh, D-4, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi
31. P S Roy, deputy director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Balanagar, Hyderabad 500 037,
Andhra Pradesh
32. Lalji Singh, director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road,
Hyderabad 500 007, Andhra Pradesh
33. Harini Nagendra, Asia research coordinator, Center for the Study of Institutions, Population
and Environmental Change, Indiana University, and Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, Karnataka
34. Arun Agnihotri, [email protected]
35. Shomita Mukherjee, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore
36. S Chandola, addl PCCF and CWLW, Uttaranchal
37. K Yoganand, PhD scholar, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun 248 001
38. Mohammed Irfan Ullah, fellow (scientist), Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment, 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, Karnataka
39. Mahesh Rangarajan, independent researcher, 24 Samachar Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-I
Extension, Delhi 110 009
40. Harsh Vardhan, honorary general secretary, Tourism and Wildlife Society of India, C-158A,
Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004, Rajasthan
41. Bransdon S Corrie, chief conservator of forests (WL), Thiruvananthapuram
42. Anjana Gosain, honorary secretary, Tiger Trust, 206, Rakeshdeep, 11 Commercial Complex,
Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi 110 049
43. Archana Singh, Lokmath Samachar, Pandit Jawaharlal Marg, Nagpur 440010, Maharashtra
44. Arpan Sharma/Asmita, Samrakshan Trust, E-314, Anandlok, Mayur Vihar Phase – I, New Delhi-91.
45. Anil Garg, near PO Khadi Bhandar, Kothi Bazar, Betul 460 001, Madhya Pradesh
46. Vivek R Sinha, 764, 100 Feet Road, HAL IInd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038.
47. Anita S Areckal, deputy conservator of forests, Mangalore Forest Division, Mangalore, Karnataka
48. Ashok Kumar, senior advisor and trustee, Wildlife Trust of India, C-644, First Floor,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110 065
49. Raghunandan Singh Chundawat, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No 18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun 248001, Uttaranchal
50. Vijay Soni, angler, environmentalist, Indian Fish and Wildlife Conservancy, 43, Golf Links,
New Delhi 110 003
51. Dr S Shivaji, scientist (deputy director), Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB),
Uppal Road, Hyderabad 500 007.
52. Dr M Janikaraman, 6060 Village Bend Street, Apt # 310, Dallas TX 75206, USA
53. Avdhash Kaushal, RLEK, 68/1, Suryalok colony, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttaranchal.
54. Meenal Shrivastava, professor, international relations, Wits University 2050, Johannesburg,
Wits, South Africa
55. S K Tiwari, wildlife photographer, naturalist, [email protected]
56. Ramma Handoo, B-12, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi 110 065
57. S M Jain, consultant, forestry, 7-B, Talwandi, Pvt Sector, Commerce College Road,
Kota 324 005, Rajasthan

190 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

58. Rakesh Shukla, research officer, Kanha tiger reserve, New Kanha Colony, near Mandla Forest
Range, Civil Lines, Mandla 681 661, Madhya Pradesh
59. A N Prasad, field director, Palamau tiger reserve, government of Jharkhand, Daltonganj 822
101, Jharkhand
60. S M Satheesan, B-16/5, AAI Colony, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099, Maharashtra
61. Bittu Sehgal, editor, Sanctuary Magazine, 602 Maker Chamber V, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400 021, Maharashtra
62. K Ullas Karanth, director, Wildlife Conservation Society-India Program, Centre for Wildlife
Studies, 823, 13th Cross Road, Jayanagar, 7th Block (West), Bangalore-560 082, Karnataka
63. M K Saran, [email protected]
64. Brian Child, chairperson, SASUSG
65. Kaushlendra Singh, [email protected]
66. A J T Johnsingh, head, Faculty of Wildlife Biology, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No.18,
Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal
67. Y V Jhala, head, Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology Department, Wildlife Institute of
India, Post Bag No.18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001, Uttaranchal
68. Kartik Shanker, fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, 659, 5th A
Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560024, Karnataka
69. Nirvana Bodhisattva, chairperson, Nirvanavan Foundation, Director CHILDLINE Alwar, Mahila
Thana Campus, Moti Dungri, Alwar, Rajasthan
70. Ghazala Shahabuddin, research associate, Environmental Studies Group, Council for Social
Development, 53, Lodi Estate, New Delhi-110003
71. Barun Mitra, director, Liberty Institute, Julian Simon Centre, C-2/13, Sahyadri Apartments,
Plot No.5, Sector-12, Dwarka New Delhi 110045
72. Shekar Dattatri, Plot 40, Door No.11, 3rd East Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600041,
Tamil Nadu,
73. Sanjay Thakre, Email: [email protected]
74. Navneet Maheshwari, Email: [email protected]
75. Subhadra Urmila Majumdar, E-mail: [email protected]
76. Vijay Verma, Patur, Turner Road, PO Clement Town, Dehradun 248002, Uttaranchal
77. S S Murthy, Mission Compound, Napier Town, Jabalpur 482001, Madhya Pradesh,
78. A S Negi, Email: [email protected]
79. Ujjal Kumar Sarma, E-mail: [email protected]
80. Ajith Kumar, Wildlife Conservation-India Programme, 294, 5th main, Canara Bank layout,
Bangalore 560097, Karnataka
81. M D Madhusudan, Wildlife Ecologist and Trustee, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, IV
Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore 570002, Karnataka,
82. Shantanu Guha Ray, producer & head, Cricket Show and Special, ESPN Star Sports, 22, Pushpa
Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi .
83. H S Jamadagni, professor and chairperson, Centre for Electronics Design and Technology,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, Karnataka and Dr A. Pittet,
Chief Project Advisor
84. Manoj Misra, Peace Institute, 178-F, Pocket IV, Mayur Vihar, Phase – I, New Delhi – 110 091,
85. T R Shankar Raman, wildlife scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, IV Cross,
Gokulam Park, Mysore 570002, Karnataka
86. Punit Lalbhai, project associate, CEE Tiger Conservation CELL
87. Ratna Kapur, Email: [email protected]
88. S P Goyal, scientist, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag No.18, Chandrabani,
Dehradun – 248 001, Uttaranchal,
89. Jarnail Singh, conservator of forests & field director, Pench National Park, Near Government
Printing Press, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra
90. Hitesh Malhotra IFS, Addl. PCCF (WL) and CWLW, Govt. of AP, R & D Circle, Opp. RBI Building,
Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500004, Andhra Pradesh

Annexures 191
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

91. J C Daniel, honorary secretary, Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr Salim Ali
Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400023, Maharashtra
92. Janaki Lenin, Draco Films, PO Box 21, Chengalpattu 603001, Tamil Nadu
93. A R Maslekar, B-15, Amar Heights, Aundh Road, Khadki- Pune - 411 020
94. Karamjeet Singh, Email: [email protected]
95. Manojit Saha, [email protected]
96. V P Singh, chairperson, Empowered Committee on Forests & Wildlife Management - 2005, Van
Bhawan, Vaniki Path, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005
97. Ramanuj Choudhary, chief conservator of forests (Working Plans), Office of the Chief
Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Nagpur-440001
98. K Chanchal Singh, convener, Kota Regional Chapter, INTACH, 71, Lodhi Estate,
New Delhi-110003
99. Parul Rishi, Faculty of Personnel Management & Organisational Behaviour, Indian Institute of
Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal-462003.
100. Bijan Ghosh, advocate, Supreme Court of India, 341 New Chamber Block, Supreme Court
Buildings, New Delhi 110001
101. Jayan P A, [email protected]
102. Kartick Satyanarayan, co-founder, chairperson, Wildlife S.O.S, D-210, Defence colony,
New Delhi 110024
103. Sanjay Upadhyay, Enviro Legal Defence Firm, 278, Sector 15-A, NOIDA 201301
104. Prakash Gole, director, Ecological Society, B/2 Jayanti Apartments, Senapati Bapat Road,
Near Ratna Memorial Hospital, Pune 411016
105. R K Singh, Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi
106. Ravi Singh, secretary general and CEO, WWF-India Secretariat, Pirojsha Godrej National
Conservation Centre, 172 B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110003
107. Satya Priya Sinha, consultant and project coordinator, sos Rhino Project, Wildlife Institute of
India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001
108. Vijay Ghugey, Nature Science Club, 138, Kalpataru, Mahalaxmi Nagar, No 2, Manewada
Road, Nagpur 440024
109. Gopal Thosar, honorary president, Vasundhara, 66, Ganesh Colony, Police Chowki,
Pratapnagar, Nagpur 440022
110. S N Sukliker, president and Dilip Gode, secretary, Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society,
Tidke Ashram, Ganespeth, Nagpur 440018
111. Kundan Hate, vice president, Satpuda Foundation 86, Shivneri Apartment, Kanfade Nagar,
Ring Road, Nagpur 440015
112. Saharsh Agarwal, Camp Umariya, Umariya district, Madhy Pradesh 484661
113. Pasi Joseph, Murali Rahi, Rajkumar Khodecha, National Environment and Wildlife Society,
Gondia, Maharashtra
114. R Annamalai, field director and conservator of forest, Tamilnadu Forest Department, Project
Tiger, NGO ‘A’ colony, Tirunelveli 627007
115. S S Chitwadgi, chartered forester, Bharat Forestry Consultancy, 156/A, Indrapuri, Bhopal
462021
116. S H Patil, conservator of forests and field director, Tadoba-Andhari tiger reserve Chandrapur

192 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ANNEXURE-VIII Methodology for estimating and

monitoring tiger status and habitat
■ Y V JHALA, faculty, Wildlife Institute of India
■ QAMAR QURESHI, faculty, Wildlife Institute of India
■ RAJESH GOPAL, director, Project Tiger

The only form of tiger population monitoring in press) and tiger DNA profiles obtained from scats
undertaken in the country is a total count (census) of and other non-invasive techniques (Broquet and
the country-wide tiger population every four years Petit 2004, Prugh et al 2005 and Xu et al 2005).
and within tiger reserves every one-two years. The Here, we propose an alternative technique based
census is based on intensive monitoring of tigers on a four-stage approach:
within areas, identifying individual tigers by visual
inspection of the pugmark tracings/plaster casts, Stage I: Spatial mapping and monitoring of
mapping tiger distribution at the local scale and tigers, prey and habitat
inferring total numbers from the above information
(Choudhury 1970, Panwar 1979, Sawarkar 1987 and This stage consists of mapping
Singh 1999). This methodology has come under (a) tiger presence and relative abundance (Karanth
severe criticism (Karanth et al, 2003). The major and Nichols 2002);
limitations of the above technique are that (b) tiger prey presence and relative abundance and
1. it relies on subjective (expert knowledge) (c) habitat quality and anthropogenic pressures at a
identification of tigers based on their pugmarks; high spatial resolution of 15-20 km2.
2. the pugmarks of a tiger are likely to vary with We consider a forest beat (an administrative unit,
substrate, tracings/casts and the tiger’s gait; 15-20 sq km in size, delineated primarily on natural
3. it is not possible to obtain pugmarks of tigers boundaries) as the unit for sampling. Since each beat
from all tiger occupied landscapes, and is allocated to a beat guard for patrolling and
4. the method attempts a total count of all tigers protection, the boundaries of a beat are well
(Karanth et al, 2003). recognised by forest staff. The sampling would be
An alternative proposed by tiger biologists is to systematically distributed in all beats of tiger occupied
use individually identified tigers by camera traps in forests (tiger reserves, revenue and reserve forests).
a capture-recapture statistical framework to estimate Thus, in effect, the entire landscape where tigers are
tiger densities (Karanth 1995 and 1998, Karanth and likely to occur is sampled (beats are not stratified or
Nichols 1998, 2000 and 2002, Karanth et al 2004, Per randomly sampled, but all beats are sampled as large
Wegge et al 2004 and Pollock et al 1990). The method humanpower is available for sampling). In forest
has been useful in determining tiger densities in areas, where beat boundaries are not delineated (< 20
small areas, within tiger reserves having high to per cent of tiger occupied forests in the country) –
medium density tiger populations. The method has a such as the northeast — 15-20 sq km sampling units
high potential for monitoring source population and will be identified on the basis of natural boundaries
smaller sample areas within tiger occupied (ridges, drainage, etc). The detailed methodological
landscapes. However, due to the technical nature of approach for sampling carnivore signs, ungulate
the technique, high cost, security issues of the encounter rates, pellet/dung counts, habitat and
equipment and low performance in low density tiger anthropogenic pressures are presented in the ‘Field
populations this method has its limitations Guide’ (Jhala and Qureshi 2004).
for a country-wide application for monitoring The target data are extremely easy to collect and
tigers (Carbone et al 2001, Karanth 1995 and require no high level of technical skills or equipment.
1998, Karanth and Nichols 1998, 2000 and 2002, It is crucial that the forest department staff is primarily
Karanth et al 2004 and Kawanishi and Sunquist responsible for the data collection due to the sheer
2004). magnitude of the task involved. Furthermore, the
The other two potential methods that can be used involvement of the forest department staff instills
in smaller sample areas for monitoring source tiger ownership and accountability of this agency which is
populations are the individual identification of tigers primarily responsible for the protection and
from digital images of their pugmarks (Sharma et al, management of wildlife resources. The forest

Annexures 193
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

department staff will be trained in the data collection We have tried to address the issue of reporting
protocol and tested for consistency. inflated numbers by laying emphasis on animal signs
The spatial data generated will be scientifically instead of numbers. Furthermore, the resolution of the
robust, and amenable for statistical analysis and data generated will be reduced to four-five categories
inference. Since several replicate surveys will be (high, medium, low and absent). Several corroborating
undertaken in each beat, we shall be able to model variables like prey encounter rates, pellet group
tiger occupancy, detection probability of tiger signs, counts and habitat condition will help in ensuring
and relative sign density at a high spatial resolution quality data; discrepancies in reporting will be easy to
(stratified on the basis of ecological characteristics, pinpoint. There would be an audit mechanism in
range or a superimposed grid of varying scale) using place to scrutinise the data collection, compilation
the approach of MacKenzie et al (2002), Royale and and analysis. National and international experts
Nicholes (2003) and Royle (2004). Since the data will would act as observers while officers in-charge will
be analysed in a GIS domain, several spatial and ensure adherence to the prescribed protocol and
attribute data like human density, livestock density, transparency of protocol implementation.
road network, topographical features, forest type and The system, once institutionalised and imple-
cover, meteorological data, poaching pressures and mented, will not only serve to monitor tiger popula-
landscape characteristics will be used as covariates tions but will also monitor the status of other
to model tiger occupancy and relative abundance in biodiversity resources of all tiger occupied landscapes,
a landscape and individual forest patches. Time- truly exemplifying the role of the tiger as a flagship. It
series analysis of the data at a larger spatial will serve as an effective tool for decision makers,
resolution is likely to have sufficient precision for managers and conservationists alike and will help
monitoring spatial occupancy of tigers in association guide and plan land use policy at a landscape level.
with changes in tiger prey, habitat quality and We have tested the logistics of implementation of
anthropogenic pressures. the above methodology in the Satpura-Maikal

Map 1: DISTRIBUTION OF UNGULATE TIGER PREY IN THE SATPURA-MAIKAL LANDSCAPE

Relative density
Low

Medium

High

Forest

194 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

Map 2a: TIGER SIGN PRESENCE WITHIN THE SATPURA-MAIKAL LANDSCAPE

Relative density

Protected area

Tiger sign

Forest cover

landscape (about 48,000 sq km) in Madhya Pradesh current spatial distribution of tigers, potential
covering 3,150 beats in 178 forest ranges and mapped habitats, threats to crucial linkages between
tiger and ungulate abundance. Tiger presence was occupied landscapes and conservation planning.
recorded in 290 beats with 78 beats having high, 57
having medium and 155 having low abundance of Stage III: Estimating the population of tigers
tiger signs. Ungulate tiger prey was recorded in 1,678 and its prey
beats. Spatial distribution of these is shown in Figures
1, 2a and 2b. The analysis of this data is in progress. Stage 3 of the proposed methodology answers the
question of how many tigers and ungulates are there.
Stage II: Spatial and attribute data Teams of researchers will be deployed in each
landscape complex for estimating tiger density and
The spatial and aspatial data that are likely to ungulate densities within stratified sampling units.
influence tiger occupancy of a landscape will be used
for modeling in a GIS domain. The vegetation map, Tiger numbers
terrain model, night light satellite data, drainage,
transportation network, forest cover, climate data, We propose to stratify a Tiger Conservation Unit
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, livestock (TCU) into tiger sign abundance classes of high,
abundance, human density, socio-economic medium, low and no tiger sign at the beat and larger
parameters, etc will be used for modeling habitat spatial resolution (range 100 sq km). In each of these
condition and tiger occupancy. Beat-wise vegetation strata, within a landscape (TCU), we propose to
sampling will be done to generate broad vegetation estimate actual tiger density in three-five replicates
map. IRS (KISS3 and AWiFS), LANDSAT and AVHRR of sufficient size (50-200 sq km).
satellite data will be used. Part of this component All known techniques of tiger density estimates
will be done in collaboration with Forest Survey of will be used depending on the logistic possibility
India. This modeling will help in determining within each landscape: capture-recapture based on

Annexures 195
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

Map 2b: 100 SQ KM HABITAT BLOCKS WITH DIFFERENT ABUNDANCE RANKING OF TIGER SIGNS WITHIN THE
SATPURA-MAIKAL LANDSCAPE

Low

Medium

Good

High

Forest cover

camera traps (Karanth 1995 and 1998, Karanth and population and site-specific occupancies. To convert
Nichols 1998, 2000 and 2002, Karanth et al 2004, encounter rates to density, an estimate of the
Pollock et al 1990, Carbone et al 2001 and Per Wegge effective strip width of these transects would be
et al 2004), mark-recapture based on pugmarks essential. The effective strip width of a transect
(Sharma et al in press) and DNA profile obtained from primarily depends on the visibility (vegetation and
tiger scats (Broquet and Petit 2004, Prugh et al 2005 terrain type), ability to detect ungulates by different
and Xu et al 2005). These densities will then be observers and animal behaviour response (Buckland
extrapolated for the areas under various density et al 1993). We modeled effective strip widths in
classes within the landscape to arrive at a tiger different vegetation types of a landscape in the
population estimate (Figure 3). We do realise that Satpura-Maikal landscape using model ungulate
these population estimates are likely to have high cutouts (Figure 4). Effective strip widths determined
variances, but since these estimates will not be used from the model and actual sightings of ungulates for
for monitoring trends (which is proposed to be done different vegetation types estimated for the same
through the site occupancy and relative abundance season did not differ (Mitra 2004) within Kanha (a
data), they should suffice the need for converting a protected area). However, ungulate response is likely
relevant ecological index to a more comprehensible to play an important role in disturbed areas in
concept of numbers. determining effective strip widths. We intend to
determine habitat and terrain-specific effective strip
Tiger prey widths by actually sampling selected sampling units
and by modeling. Since the transect line in a beat is
Stage I of the protocol would be reporting encounter habitat-specific (Jhala and Qureshi 2004), we would
rates on line transects (Buckland et al 1993); these be able to use these estimates of effective strip widths
would suffice for monitoring trends in ungulate for converting encounter rates of ungulates to density

196 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

tigers obtained by camera traps or by regular cameras

EXTRAPOLATING TIGER SIGN INDEX TO TIGER
should be maintained in the form of a photo identity
DENSITIES AND POPULATION ESTIMATES
album. Records should be kept on the location,
Stage III - Intensive • Area Samped ~48,000 km2 condition (breeding status, injury, etc) and
12
stratified sampling for • High Density Tiger~1,800 km2 associated tigers whenever a tiger is sighted. This
Tiger Density Estimation • Medium Density Tigers~1,300 km2
10 will provide crude data on ranging patterns,
(currently ongoing, • Low Density Tigers~5,900 km2
Tiger Density 100 km-2

preliminary data) demography and mortality.

8
Tiger pugmark and other signs: Regular monitoring
6
of tiger signs (pugmark tracings, plaster casts, etc)
4
should be undertaken in every beat at a weekly
interval with monthly compilation of data. With
2 experience and exposure to the resident tigers and
their pugmarks, the forest staff may be able to
0 identify individual tigers from their track set
Now sign Low Medium High
characteristics (Panwar 1979, Smith et al 1999 and
Tiger sign index
Sharma 2001). Sign surveys and individual tiger
Preliminary data suggests tiger population in the Satpura-Maikal
landscpe ranges between 239-392 (315)
monitoring should become a regular task for every
guard as was the practice some years ago and is
currently practised in some tiger reserves. The
estimates by modeling detection probabilities. monthly data should be mapped and maintained to
Pellet group counts on transects would serve as analyse trends.
an index to the presence of ungulate species and
pellet relative abundance (and are not used for Monitoring by telemetry in select areas: Use
absolute density estimation), especially in disturbed modern technology of VHF, GPS and satellite telemetry
areas where actual sightings may be difficult. to study and monitor aspects of demography,
metapopulation dynamics (dispersal, ranging
Stage IV: Intensive monitoring of source patterns), mortality, predation ecology and
populations behaviour.
In all source populations, tiger abundance and
We propose that source populations of tigers (tigers density should be estimated using camera traps,
in tiger reserves and protected areas) in each tiger digital images of pugmarks and/or DNA profile from
landscape complex be monitored intensively. We non-invasive methods biannually.
propose the following methodology for this The Project Tiger directorate will play the
monitoring: overall supervisory and coordination role for all
the phases and tasks under each phase of the
Photo registration of tigers: Pictures of individual monitoring.

Annexures 197
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-IX Investing in institutions for change:

strengthening the Project Tiger directorate
The tiger-reform agenda will not be possible without National:
revamping institutional structures and processes
across the board. The Project Tiger directorate itself A. General
will have to be strengthened: planning, 1. Processing of the annual plan of operations
implementation, monitoring and corrective received from states for providing funding
mechanisms must happen down the line. support
Currently, the directorate has only the 2. Collation and scrutiny of utilisation certificates
incumbent director as an effective professional. as received from states vis-à-vis the central
Whatever assistance he has is deficient in field assistance provided
experience as well as the needed senior status to 3. Collation and scrutiny of monthly, quarterly,
measure up to the desired equations, as is required to half-yearly and annual reports received from the
deal with the states. states
The directorate staff lacks field training, and 4. Monitoring compliance of instructions relating
doesn’t have the seniority to deal with states to patrolling/special patrolling/protection
effectively. initiatives
Certainly, this situation must improve. 5. Supervisory field visits and interaction with
Compenent professional assistants having chief wildlife wardens and field staff
expertise in wildlife management, Geographical 6. Facilitating networking for wildlife crime
Information Systems, statistics and socio- detection
economics. Only carefully selected, individuals 7. Collation of tiger poaching data
from the state forest service cadre and scientific 8. Replying to Parliament questions, Parliamentary
cadres – with the participation of the director in the Committees/VIP references.
selection process – can ensure the requisite 9. Filing replies relating to tiger conservation
professional experience and calibre in the litigation ongoing in courts of law
candidates selected. 10. Furnishing replies to audit paras, furnishing
It is on these lines that the Project Tiger reports and returns and participating in the
directorate shall have to be revamped. It will be routine meetings of the ministry
necessary to accord a fair measure of autonomy to the 11. Fostering awareness, eliciting public support
directorate in order to ensure quick decision-making towards tiger conservation
and exercising timely interventions for correctives at 12. Implementing complementary externally aided
the tiger reserve and state administration levels. projects
Likewise, effective institutional structures shall have
to be put in place to approve programmes and B. Technical
finances. 1. Providing technical comments to the state chief
A competent governing body will be essential wildlife wardens on management plans of tiger
to take decisions on policy and programme-merit reserves
and its size for the different reserves. The states’ 2. Formulating guidelines on managerial issues
response shall have to be ensured by carefully relating to core and buffer zones, including
selecting lead managers in each reserve and placing carrying capacity for tourist visitation, eco-
the buffer zones under field directors’ control right tourism and park interpretation
away, where not already done. Simultaneously, a 3. Carrying out independent monitoring of tiger
judicious planning exercise shall have to be reserves based on a set criteria by a panel of
undertaken to launch the integrated conservation experts
and people supportive programmes over a larger 4. Monitoring the country-level status of tiger
area, say a sub-landscape much beyond the existing population/habitat based on Geographical
buffer zones. Information Systems (GIS)
The Director, Project Tiger should have 5. Carrying out the all India estimation of tigers, co-
considerable operational freedom and office support predators and prey animals once in every four
to perform the above role. At present, the Project Tiger years
directorate is performing the following functions: 6. Assessing the comparative forest cover status of

198 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

tiger reserves and their surrounds through the 14. Facilitating capacity building of field officers in
Forest Survey of India tiger reserve for management and crime
7. Facilitating faunal survey of tiger reserves detection
through the Zoological Survey of India 15. Mainstreaming the good/wise practices from
8. Facilitating floristic survey of tiger reserves various tiger reserves
through the Botanical Survey of India 16. Participating in training courses of field officers
9. Preparing a country-level status paper on Project as resource person
Tiger
10. Digital customisation of category-wise funds International:
utilised in tiger reserves since the inception of
the project, and its updation 1. Participating in international meetings of
11. Linking tiger reserves in the GIS domain through conventions like the Convention on International
National Information Centre for Management Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
Information Systems. 2. Participating in trans-boundary meetings with
12. Fostering field research and radio telemetry Nepal on tiger conservation
studies of tigers in tiger reserves in collaboration 3. Participating in the meetings of the Global Tiger
with the Wildlife Institute of India Forum
13. Organising national/international workshops on 4. Evolving bilateral protocol with neighbouring
tiger conservation tiger range countries

Annexures 199
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-X A critique of cadre-building in the

forestry sector and suggestions for human
resource improvement
■ H S PANWAR, member, Tiger Task Force

The institutional hierarchy in the forestry sector is in wildlife management. Besides they also carry out
organised in the following structures: the works e.g. fire protection, road maintenance.
Foresters and forest/wildlife guards constitute
The Indian Forest Service (IFS), an All-India Service, the main frontline whereas the rangers are the main
leads forest and wildlife management both in the field executants. ACFs (IFS probationers and SFS
states and the Centre. Recruitment in the service is officers), DCFs and CFs carry out different levels of
direct and by promotion from the State Forest supervisory and control functions in an ascending
Service. Central government positions are also filled order from rangers above:
by IFS officers seconded on deputation from the state
cadres. Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF): Field
supervision of protection and management.
The State Forest Service (SFS): The SFS officers render
the function of supervisory assistance in protection Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF): Above plus
and work execution. Recruitment is both direct and planning annual work programmes, budgets,
by promotion from range forest officers. When IFS rendering accounts and exercising administrative
was reconstituted in 1966, direct recruitment to the control over their territories and units in their charge,
state service was stopped. But, ostensibly, to share say a forest division, a protected area or a part of a
the increased workload direct recruitment was tiger reserve.
restarted in 1978. As it proved later this was an
unwise move as over time this has led to widespread Conservator of Forests (CF): As head of a forest-circle
stagnation in forestry cadres down the line from or the field director of a tiger reserve, carries out
rangers to forest/wildlife guards. planning, oversees implementation and exercises
overall administrative control. In a territorial charge
Forest Rangers or Range Forest Officers (RFO): Forest a CF usually controls 4-5 forest divisions.
and wildlife protection and execution of field
activities as well as accounts are organized and Poor Cadre Planning & Management
controlled with a range as the base unit. The RFO is
the key field level functionary. Recruitment is both The adverse impacts of revival of direct recruitments
direct and by promotion from the post of deputy to the SFS have significantly upset the promotion
rangers. prospects lower down leading to frustration in the
subordinate forestry cadres – the rangers and the
Forester/Deputy Ranger (Range Assistant or Round frontline staff. This has been further drastically
Officer): A range is usually organized into two compounded by the heavy direct recruitments in the
subunits in charge a forester or deputy ranger. They IFS and SFS and even RFO cadres during 1978 up to
lead or participate in patrolling parties as well as about 1990. In the IFS the peak years were 1988, 1989
execute field works and other activities. Recruitment and 1993, otherwise they have remained at annual
at forester level is both direct and by protection from averages during periods shown below:
forest guard level. Generally deputy ranger Positions ● Peak years: 1988 - 155; 1989 - 107 and 1993 - 82
are all filled by promotion from foresters. ● 65 during 1968-1986
● 55 during 1989-1997 (excluding 1993, a peak
Forest and Wildlife Guards: Basic protection unit is year)
a beat manned by a forest/wildlife guard assisted by ● 25 during 1998-2003
a ‘watcher’. In PAs, guards must live in interior
chowkis and carry our patrolling as well as keep In the SFS also these have been erratic with
track of animals or animal-signs and habitat use by irrationally high levels from 1980 to 1990 averaging
them. They thus render valuable information of use at 123 per year. They dropped off to about 33

200 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

between 1991 and 1998, steeply declining in 1999 to (ascertained by test) the educational qualifications
just three. There was no recruitment in 2000 and 16 may be brought down to just 5th standard of school
were recruited in 2001. After that there have been education. In any case all cadres need a thorough
just a few or no recruitments. review and an obligatory institution of a rational
At RFO level the recruitment were again high strategy so that such upsets that affect the very core
during 1978 to 1982 averaging at 470 per year. It of forestry and wildlife functions are not ever
ranged from 120 to 290 between 1983 and 1989, repeated.
averaging at 209 per year. Later it dropped to a
trickle. The total cadre strength of RFOs of all states Capacity Building
put together is 9974. If a third is to be filled by
promotion from lower rank, the net strength of direct In tune with the decay in the forestry services, the
recruits would be 6600. If an average of 20-25 year capacity building has deteriorated too, mainly from
stay in RFO cadre is taken before promotion, this lack of interest on part of the states. Thus, there is
would suggest a mean quota of about 260-330 per not only a shortage of staff but also a steep fall in the
year, or say an average of 300 per year. Steady direct professional capacity, particularly in wildlife
recruitment to the RFO cadre at this rate is critical management and in respect of the needed paradigm
because the average age of this important field shift in favour of participatory management of forests
executive cadre must remain around 40 years. But and PAs through initiatives e.g. JFM and
erratic heavy recruitment in six years from 1978 to ecodevelopment. The low availing of training
1982 upset this and also the avenues for promotion facilities in wildlife management in the WII is now
for the frontline staff. the reason of many PAs in many states being managed
It is not difficult to see that the direct by untrained officers. The training capacity of WII for
recruitments to the different levels of forestry cadres 9-month PG Diploma course in wildlife management
have been erratic and irrational across the board. for IFS and SFS officers is 30 per year but right through
This has undermined the functional efficacy of nearly two decades the actual number of trainees has
institutional structures in field functions. This has stagnated at less than 20 on an average. Likewise the
also led to marked stagnation in all cadres too, which 3-month certificate course for the rangers having also
has been a major reason for the low morale of the a capacity of 30 has remained underutilised at well
forestry services all across. As challenges and threats below 20 per year. In order to meet the reason
have aggravated, the forestry service efficacy has advanced by the states of paucity of funds the MoEF
been steadily decimated by these horrors in cadre has provided for cent percent training cost to be
planning and management. It has also done untold borne by itself from 2003. This has so far had only
harm to the training institutions, also all across. marginal improvement. It is also seen that training
The forestry services have to discharge a wide interest varies from state to state.
spectrum of functions from policing to development There is low priority to capacity building and to
including contribution to the socioeconomic well undertaking organized staff development plan in the
being of the forest dwellers. Besides the well over a forestry services. The worst sufferer of this lapse is
decade old adoption of none or next to negligible the wildlife management. States have not taken
direct recruitments by the states at all levels has much interest in upgrading their forester and forest
given a severe blow to the protection and guard training schools in terms of introducing
development functions of the forestry services. special packages for wildlife management within
While it is not advisable to make direct forestry courses and undertaking full time wildlife
recruitment to the SFS cadre in most states it is management courses. Some years back the WII had
necessary to fill up positions by promotion from the developed specific curricula in wildlife management
RFO cadre. It is essential to revive direct recruitments for forester and wildlife guard courses and selected
at ‘normal’ levels immediately at the RFO and forester two schools (Kalagarh in Uttaranchal and
levels. Recruitments to the FG/WLG cadres shall have Bandhavgarh in Madhya Pradesh) for assistance by
to be somewhat heavier in order to fill up large-scale way of training of trainers and also helped run one
vacancies and thus rationalize the average age of the course. But these schools are now running under
frontline. There is, however, no case for any increase utilized. It is necessary to strengthen these schools
in the respective sanctioned strength of all the so as to meet the needs of other states in the
cadres. In order to mend the fence with the local respective regions. WII should also ask other large
community, a good measure would be to fill up all or states to come forward to avail this capacity building
at least 50 per cent posts at forester and 75 per cent help in developing their schools and staff. WII has an
posts at forest/wildlife guard levels by preferential enormous responsibility ahead to bring up capacity
appointment of local candidates. For the tribal in states and to prepare a fair number of IFS officers in
candidates having good jungle-craft skills order to constitute the long awaited ‘wildlife sub-

Annexures 201
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

cadre’, which the TTF has fully endorsed. But envision conservation at landscape level, which
unfortunately it has lost long years in stagnation while securing ecosystem services, biodiversity and
despite its efforts to the contrary. wildlife helps rapid amelioration of degraded forests
and pastures in a transparent participatory mode
Preparing for paradigm shift with the genuine local stakeholders and deserving
beneficiaries. IGNFA, WII, IIFM and rangers colleges, all
There has been some recognition but hardly any institutions in the domain of the MoEF, need to gear
conviction for the paradigm shift in forest and up to prepare the forester-wildlifer to be a realistic
wildlife management towards an integrated visionary, a planner and implementer of intergraded
management strategy to ameliorate degraded forests programmes capable of ushering the paradigm shift
in order to improve ecosystem services and enhance into the field level. This will require a thorough
productivity for the forest dwellers, the country at review of all curricula of these institutions as well as
large and for state revenues. Diversion, degradation a wherewithal for competent and adequate training
and fragmentation of forests from pressures of of fresh recruits. Equally, IGNFA and WII shall have to
industrial development, markets and a steep rise in expeditiously take up the work of planning and
human population post-independence have forced running refresher courses for IFS and SFS officers.
foresters to adopt a protectionist enforcement Short-term courses will be needed for senior IFS
approach. This has cost them the loss of sympathy officers and medium terms courses for other IFS and
of forest dwellers and the development planners SFS officers. WII shall also have to design and
alike. implement such courses for the rangers. Both
While industrial development needs being institutions shall have to take up special training of
obligated to observe stricter discipline and to carry trainers (ToT) programmes imparting expert help in
greater environmental responsibility, the forestry- the initial stages in institution based and field
wildlife sector equally needs to become a key training modules. They must continue to run such
mainstream development agency, especially programmers later as and when needed to update the
contributing to the well being of the forest and forest- capacity of training institutions. The Director of
fringe dwellers. The sector must also simultaneously forestry education shall similarly have to participate
improve overall conservation in the interest of in the capacity building of rangers colleges and in
ecological security including water security, effectively running programmes.
protecting our rich biodiversity and wildlife, Importantly, similar assistance will be needed
endangered species included. This reinforces that for forester and forest/wildlife guard training schools
while a forester-wildlifer is a strict enforcer against on the new outlines suggested. Identified regional
miscreants, he is a friend and development schools should be dedicated to running special
functionary of the local people, particularly the poor wildlife management courses for foresters from all
and the landless forest-dependents states and for wildlife guards from the states that do
The needed paradigm shift entails an ability to not have their own wildlife training schools.

202 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

ANNEXURE-XI Amending the criminal provisions of

the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
■ Critique by PILSAC, New Delhi for the Tiger Task Force

A. Offences and penalties under any other law is not barred for any act which
constitutes an offence under this Act, or from being
● The Act prescribes various offences and punished for a higher punishment or penalty than
penalties. These are discussed below: that provided by this Act [Section 56].
a. Any violation of the provisions of the Act, its
rules or orders made thereunder attracts a B. Special provisions relating to the
punishment of three years or a fine up to Rs investigation procedure
25,000 or both [Section 51(1)]. A second or
subsequent offence of the same nature attracts an 1. The Act prescribes distinct and special
imprisonment term of at least three years procedures for investigation which are (a)
extending to seven years and a minimum fine of different from those for the investigation of an
Rs 25,000 [second proviso to Section 51(1)]. offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
b. Where offences are committed in relation to 1973 and (b) ostensibly designed to empower
animals mentioned in Schedule I, or Part II of forest officials to initiate and participate in the
Schedule II, or where the offence relates to investigation process so that any immediate
hunting in a sanctuary or national park or violation of the Act can be remedied. To the extent
changing their boundaries, the punishment will to which forest officials have been brought into the
be at least three years imprisonment extending to investigative process to deal with an immediate
seven years and a fine of Rs 25,000 [first proviso transgression of the regime of the Act, these
to Section 51(1)]. provisions are salutary. But after an initial
c. Violation of provisions prohibiting trade or investigation is enabled in this way, the procedure
commerce in trophies, animal articles and the limps forward, only to get ensnared as a relatively
like, derived from certain animals, would attract minor case through the criminal process.
a punishment of at least three years of 2. It might be useful to recount the special
imprisonment extending to seven years and a investigative provisions of the Act of 1972 (as
fine of Rs 10,000 [Section 51(1A)]. amended). These are as follows:
d. Any person who teases, molests, injures, feeds ● Power to enter, search and seize
animals in zoos or causes disturbance to animals ● Power to arrest and detain
or litters the zoo will be punishable by ● Power to record evidence
imprisonment for a term of six months or a fine ● Duty to render assistance
which may extend to Rs 2,000 or with both ● Power to destroy or dispose
[Section 51(1B)].
e. Persons convicted under the provisions of the Power of entry, search and seizure:
Act also stand to lose their license or permit Section 50 (1) (a) allows certain officials, including
[Section 51(2) and 51(3)] while also having their the Director or any other officer authorised by him in
license under the Arms Act, 1959 cancelled/ this behalf, or the Chief Wildlife Warden or the
reinforced by an order that no re-issue of arms authorised officer or any forest officer or any police
license be made till up to five years from the date officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, to
of conviction [Section 51(4)]. They will also have require the production, for purposes of inspection,
no claim to the vehicle used while the offence any article of wildlife or license and permit
was being committed [Section 51(2)]. It also documents to be kept by the person under the
becomes difficult for persons convicted to provisions of the Act. These officers are also given
receive bail under Section 51A. powers of search [Section 50 (1) (b)] and seizure
f. Persons who, without reasonable cause, fail to [Section 50 (1) (c)].
produce the things they are required to produce It should be noted that this immediate power of
under the Act, will be guilty of the offence entry, search and seizure can be exercised to (a)
[Section 50 (8)]. require any animal, trophy to be produced; (b) stop a
g. It is also important to point out that prosecution vehicle or search premises, baggage or other things;

Annexures 203
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

or (c) seize any animal, trophy, plant in respect of animals to the custody of the person, in whose
which an offence is created. An exception is made of possession they are, need examination.
fisherfolk who inadvertently enter by boat, not used These provisions provide the enforcement
for commercial fishing, into a national park. process a healthy start; the process then flounders.
There is no provision for inviting a Special
Power to arrest and detain: Investigation Team. As soon as these ‘immediate’
There is a power to arrest and detain without warrant acts are done, the entire case is placed before a
for something impermissible — done without magistrate to limp along without priority or speed.
permission. Such a detention may not take place if
the officers in question are satisfied of the name and C. Method and forum of trial
address of a person and if the person concerned will
answer a summons or other proceedings that might Following investigation, a case proceeds on the basis
be taken against him Section 50 (3). While such an prescribed under the Code, 1973 [Section 4(2), CrPC]
approach is conducive to civil liberties, such unless the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 lays down
provisions work against the poor, who often have no special provisions to the contrary [Section 5, CrPC].
fixed address nor are able to satisfy the officer of their Broadly speaking, this means:
bona fides. It should be noted that persons detained 1. There is no distinction between serious and trivial
or things seized will be produced before a magistrate cases. All cases proceed under weak trial regimes.
[Section 50 (4)]. 2. All the cases proceed as complaint cases, rather
than serious criminal cases to be tried by
The power to record evidence: sessions.
Under Section 50 (8) (d), any officer not below the 3. Even as complaint cases, where the offence
rank of an Assistant Director of Wildlife Preservation attracts imprisonment for two years or more, it is
or Wildlife Warden shall have the power to receive treated as a warrant case to be tried by a
and record evidence. More importantly, such procedure different from normal crimes.
evidence can be admissible in any subsequent trial 4. Where the offence attracts imprisonment for less
under Section 50 (9) before a magistrate, the only than two years, it is treated as a summary case, to
condition being that it should have been taken in the be tried by a less rigorous procedure.
presence of the accused person. 5. Very minor cases can be tried by summary
procedures.
Duty to render assistance:
Under Section 50 (7), all persons have a duty to What needs to be done?
render assistance for the purposes of (i) prevention or The cases need to be treated as serious criminal
detection of an offence; (ii) apprehending persons cases. The first step must be to differentiate between
charged with violation of the Act and (iii) for seizure serious and non-serious cases and ensure that serious
of substances when exercising the power of seizure cases are tried as police cases by the Sessions Courts.
under Section 50 (1) (c). This has an impact on the manner in which the
cases are prosecuted. Since they are complaint cases,
Power to destroy or dispose: the police do not prosecute them. It is left to the
If the article seized is government property as defined overworked forest officials to come to court and build
in Section 39, then the officer has the power to arrange the case before it can be taken further. The cases linger
for the sale of the seized substance under Section 50 on because they are prescribed as ‘lesser’ cases and are
(6) (a). If on the other hand, the article is not not treated as priority. The prosecutors, mainly forest
government property, then the proceeds of the sale officials, are inept and lose interest. The second step
shall be returned to the owner under Section 50 (6) (b). therefore must be to have special prosecutors.
These special provisions are necessary in order Since these cases randomly languish in courts
to police the various areas and regimes created by the throughout the country, they are not monitored by a
Act of 1972. They are also hedged in by civil liberty Centralised Monitoring Task Force either at the state
precautions, so that what is done is placed before a or the Union level. So, the third step must be to
magistrate; and a person arrested may not be create a Centralised Monitoring Task Force for all
detained by an officer where the bona fides of an cases — especially the serious ones.
arrestee are established. This does hurt the landless, In order to appreciate the distinctions created by
but that is no reason for the provisions to be the Code, it would be useful to summarise the
removed. Consistent with the Constitution, it should relevant provisions of the Code. The Code makes a
be made clear that where a person is arrested, he distinction between summons cases and warrant
should be brought before a magistrate within 24 cases. Summons cases under Section 2 (w) mean a
hours. The provisions that remand live or captive case relating to an offence and not being a warrant

204 Annexures
 TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■

case. Warrant cases under Section 2 (x) of the Code D. Special provisions
are those relating to an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a The Act prescribes certain special provisions relating
term exceeding two years. As has been listed earlier, to cognisance of the offence, compoundability of the
the various offences of the Wildlife Protection Act, offence and presumptions at the stage of trial which
1972 prescribe punishment of more than two years are outlined below:
except for violation of Section 38J related to teasing 1. Section 54 allows the Government to compound
of animals in a zoo. Thus, Sections 238-250 of the any notified offence whereby a person, who
Code dealing with warrant cases would come into has committed such an offence, would be
play for all the major offences of the Act. discharged on paying a certain sum of money
When the case is instituted on the basis of a [Section 54(2)]. Such compounding is done
police report, the magistrate, once satisfied that the only to the extent of a penalty of Rs 25,000.
various documents that were to be handed over to the All such compounding terminates all pending
accused under Section 207 have been done so proceedings in relation to that offence, and no
[Section 238], proceeds to frame the charge [Section further proceeding is taken in respect of that
240]. If the magistrate does not believe a case can be offence. The penalty is determined by the forest
made out on the police documents, he may discharge officer in accordance with Section 54 (1).
the accused [Section 239]. When the accused records 2. Every person’s complaint of the violation of the
a plea of guilty he is convicted under Section 241. If Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 does not result in a
he pleads not guilty, the magistrate frames the charge trial. The process of cognisance — the manner in
if a case has been made out and proceeds to hear the which judicial notice is taken of the offence — is
case on merits after the prosecution [Section 242] and limited to complaints according to the provisions
the defence [Section 243] have arrayed the evidence of Section 55, which lists authorities like the
required. If the case is not instituted on a police Director, Wild Life Preservation, Member-
report, then the magistrate hears the prosecution and Secretary, Central Zoo Authority as being
decides whether, on the basis of the evidence competent to make the complaint. Section 55 (c)
presented by the Prosecution [Section 244], an also allows any general member of the public to
offence has been made or not. If no case has been make a complaint, after giving notice of 60 days
made out against the accused, then the magistrate to the government that he intends to do so. If the
discharges the accused [Section 245]. Otherwise, a government does not proceed on the
charge is framed under Section 246(1), and the matter prosecution, then such a person could complain
goes to trial, following the procedure prescribed in to the Court, which would then take cognisance
Section 246. With respect to the offence of teasing in of the offence.
a zoo, the procedure followed is the mechanism 3. Other special provisions relate to presumptions
indicated for a summons case. Summons cases do not in Section 57, which reverses the onus of
require the framing of a charge [Section 251] and if proof on to the person who has been caught with
the accused pleads guilty, the magistrate starts the an animal part and presumes unlawful
trial process as prescribed in Section 254. The forum possession of the same unless the contrary is
to be used for conducting trial is guided by Part II of proved.
the First Schedule of the Code, which deals with the 4. A special provision relating to offences by
classification of offences against other laws. On the companies in Section 58 pins liability on the
basis of the punishment prescribed, the case goes person from the company who has connived in
before a magistrate (for punishment of imprisonment the commission of the offence.
of less than three years) or a First Class Magistrate (for 5. Any person involved in the abetment or attempt
imprisonment of three years and not more than seven to violate the provisions of the Act is deemed to
years) or a Sessions Court (for imprisonment of seven have violated that provision and punishment
years, life or the death sentence). accordingly follows [Section 52].

Annexures 205
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT

ANNEXURE-XII Guidelines on establishment of

wildlife wings etc issued during the
period 1973- 1981
1. Letter No. 694-PMO/73 dated 27 December 1973 of the Prime Minister to the Chief Ministers of all States.
2. Letter No. 15/ii (i)74-AIS(IV) dated 16 January 1976 of the Cabinet Secretariat (Deptt of Personnel and AR)
to the Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs.
3. Letter No. J-11014/75-76 FRY(WL) dated 16 September 1976 of Joint Secretary (F&WL), Ministry of
Agriculture to the Chief Secretaires of all States and UTs.
4. Letter No. J-11014/75-74 FRY(WL) dated 25 October 1976 of Joint Secretary (F&WL), Ministry of Agriculture
to the Forest Secretaries of all States and UTs.
5. Letter No. 279-PMO/76 dated 16 December 1976 of the Prime Minister to the Chief Ministers of all States.
6. Letter No. 5-6/80-FRY(WL) dated 8 April 1980 of the Union Minister of Agriculture to all Governors and
Chief Ministers.
7. Letter No. 660-PMO/80 dated 20 April 1980 of the Prime Minister to all Governors and Chief Ministers.
8. Letter No. 8-1/80-FRY(WL) dated 21 April 1981 of Joint Secretary (F&WL), Ministry of Agriculture to the
Forest Secretaries of all States and UTs.

206 Annexures