|
 |
 |
||
|
National Parks |
|
|
||||
|
The philosophy of National park is ancient in origin and its vague idea
is found in Kalidas' SHAKUNTLAM and Vana Bbhatt's Kadambari. Ineed, the
ashrams of the saints
were abodes where men and animals lived in harmony. Kautilya's Arthasastra too gives great importance to the protection of
animalis. However, it was the emperor Asoka who had given a concrete shape
to this idea by establishing abhayaranyas which are the forerunners
of modern wildlife sanctuaries. Subseqently, the Panchtantra and Hitopdesh
also described a great veriety of wildlife species. The Moghul emperors
were also great hunters and lovers of animals. The British too carried this
tradition further as sports lovers, naturalists and hunters.It is these eminent persons who
introduced in India the concept of reserved forests, big and small hunting
games reserves and wildlife sanctuary. Game sanctuary, it may be noted,
refers to those animals and birds which are shot for trophies and for meat
where as the term ' wildlife sanctuary ' embraces all living creatures and
implies their conservation. It is this idea - shikar - a sort of hunting of wild animals as pastime for pleasure, trophy or meat became quite
popular amongst the feudal princes. Many of the existing National parks and
sanctuaries were hunting reserves of former princely rulers of Kerala,
Mysore, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh etc. For example Sariska
wildlife sanctuary, Ranthambhore National Park and Keoladeo National
Park were hunting reservedds of Maharaja of Alwar, Maharaja of Jaipur
and rulers of Bharatpur state respectively.
India had no major plans or programmers to protect wildlife during the first three decades of its independence. On the contrary independence ushered in a period of destrucation of wildlife on an unprecedented scale. During 'Grow more food compaign' the Central and State Governments started a nation wide drive to protect the crops from the depredations of wild animals. Farmers were issued Guns freely for killing the wild animals which damaged their crops. This action played havoc with the wild animals. The killing spree went on unabated and unregulated from 1947 to 1952. Some steps for wildlife conservation were, however, taken in 1951 when the Province of Bombay enacted the Wild animals and Wild Birds Protection Act, 1951.In 1952, the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL) was constituted by the Government of India to advise the the government on various wildlife issues. In 1958, the Wildlife Preservation Society of India was formed with the aim of protecting wildlife. But the enactment of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 proved to be the mile stone in the conservation and protection of wildlife in India. Though different states prior to 1972 had their own wildlife protection laws yet they were not having the requisite machinery and enforcement mechanism to provide adequate safety to wildlife inside the national parks and sanctuaries. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 was therefore, enacted with the main object and purpose that wildlife could roam about freely, fearlessly and survive in its natural surroundings in the national parks and sanctuaries. National Parks and Sanctuaries developed over the years have been given due respect as bench mark of the Bio-geographic regions, to be preserved for their gene-pool reserves. Under section 35 '' whenever it appears to the state government that an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, is, by reason of its ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological or zoological association or importance, needed to be constituted as a national park for the purpose of propagating or developing wildlife therein or its environment, it may, by notification , declare its intention to constitute such area as a nation park. "
`Sections 18 to 34 deal with sanctuaries and section 35 deals with national parks. Section 38 empowers the central Government to declare areas as sanctuaries and national parks. The Center Government control over forests and wildlife has further increased through the 42nd constitution Amendment Act when these subject were transferred to the concurrent list.
Change
the stripes It is now official that the Indian tiger is in a state of terminal emergency. The final tiger census and habitat mapping report, which was released on Tuesday, says that there are only 1,411 big cats left in the wild. Whenever we discuss our conservation efforts, the first reason given for this sorry state of affairs is that there’s no political will to save the tiger. The second answer invariably is that the growth of human population has destroyed tiger habitats. There is truth in both these answers. But the manner in which these arguments were placed before us made us believe that there was no other way to see this decline in the numbers. This tunnel vision has overshadowed the most important reason behind this decline in the number of big cats: people never joined the tiger conservation programme. The tiger was appropriated by a handful of people — inside and outside the government — and only they decided how the tigers should live or die. The larger world was never factored in. The upper class and the English-speaking elite have always dominated ‘conservation’ issues in India. This is a great loss because they were protecting something that was never truly theirs. The loss of forest cover or shrinking of tiger habitats never affected their lives. The people who were affected by any attack on the forests were those who depended on them — like the tribals. And, unfortunately, the elite who were trying to save the tiger had little place for these forest-dependent people. For them, they were the fall guys. It takes no rocket science to prove that when population increases, wildlife and forests decline. But the conservationists got the nation consumed on a debate, a non-issue really, about the co-existence of people and tigers. It was broadly agreed by everyone that tigers need inviolate space for breeding and securing their future. The next logical level should have been to create that space by voluntary and just relocation of forest dwellers. In many tiger reserves, people living inside had agreed to move out of the parks. For instance, in the few remaining villages of Kanha and Sariska, most villagers agreed to get out and were waiting for a fair compensation package of land and money. But in 30 years, our tiger protectors could manage only a few 'successful' relocations: Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka, Corbett in Uttarakhand, some villages in Kanha and in a few other reserves. If relocation wasn't easy, then efforts should have been made to help communities live inside the reserves but with little disturbance to the tigers. This, too, never happened. So, neither was there a concerted effort for relocation, nor was there any effort to reduce the tension between the people and tigers. In this 'neither-here-nor-there situation', both tigers and tribals lost their homeland. When we protect the tiger, we also protect its habitat. But if 'forest' equated as land on which it grows, then there would be political, social and economical conflicts over this precious physical resource. This is because development projects need land, forest-dwellers and tribals need land, miners are ready to pay huge sums for mineral-rich valuable land, politicians build their vote-banks by getting people to encroach upon forestlands, forest mafias throw people out of their forest land and extremists and brigands use this land to extend their activities. In Kerala, Andhra, Uttar Pradesh, Orrisa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, rural people — especially women — are at the forefront of a battle to secure their homelands in the government-designated forests. All this while, the people protecting the tigers naively thought that they could use passion and good intentions to save this land for the big cats. Even after 30 years, most people have not even started to understand the politics of the tiger land. Any meaningful mitigation strategy needs to face this conflict and factor this into its strategy. Any engagement with conservation needs a wider engagement with environmental justice and equity. Sadly, this never happened. People inside the government and outside it never dealt with the people-tiger issue innovatively, thereby alienating the people from the tiger and forests. The people who could have been allies of the tiger have now become its enemies. Where there is a partnership between the locals and tigers, it has shown results. In the nation's most-famous tiger reserve, the Corbett Tiger Reserve, the tiger population has substantially recovered. The reasons are not difficult to seek. Along with a committed management, the forest department has made strong attempts to forge partnerships with the people living in and around the reserve. In Corbett, people around the reserve share the commitment to save the tiger. In another successful case of partnership, 5,000 Soligas live with tigers in the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka. This is not a romantic model of co-existence. The model is scaffolded by two organisations which scientifically and socially audit this model. And, tiger sightings have increased at the BRT Wildlife Sanctuary. Though no scientific evidence has been collated yet, it is evident that the tiger population has increased here.With the fast-changing global economies, our priorities and aspirations are rapidly changing. In a galloping ‘tiger’ economy like India, saving the big cat is no more the national pride. The most severe threat that the tiger faces today is the mining of its habitat. Most tiger reserves are sitting over rich mineral areas and the powerful want a share of this resource. And, the only hope to arrest this, at least partially, will be through partnerships between the people who are loosing their homelands and the tiger. The groups who are fighting for people’s rights and justice and groups fighting for the tiger and ecological security are both fighting to keep off the miners and development agents from the forestlands. Therefore, both these groups should join hands and take this fight to the politicians and people who only swear by our double-digit growth. For the beleaguered tiger, this seems to be only way forward. source HT February 13,2008 Krishnendu Bose’s film, Tiger: The Death Chronicles, won the Best Wildlife Conservation Documentary award at the 2007 Vatavaran Wildlife Film Festival. other links
Foam Insulation
Residential, Commercial, Industrial Do-It-Yourself and Save -Tiger
Foam
Tiger
numbers sink to record low The Tiger population in India is at an all-time low, according to the government’s tiger census report released on Tuesday. It is estimated there are only 1,411 tigers are now left in the wild, the report said. The maximum estimated figure, the best scenario possible, is 1,657, which is lower than the 1,800 tigers estimated in India’s first tiger census in 1960. This is a massive fall from 2002 when the tiger population was estimated to be 3,642. The latest figures are of all tiger reserves except those in Jharkhand, and Indravati in Chhattisgarh, where the Naxal threat prevented estimation. In Sunderbans, the estimation process is still on. Central India, which has the large tiger population states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, has seen the maximum losses. Fifty-nine per cent of the tiger population of Madhya Pradesh, and 50% of Maharashtra, has been wiped out. Tiger reserves in the south — in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh — and the Jim Corbett Park in the terai have done well, said Rajesh Gopal, member secretary of the National Tiger Conservation Authority. The Wildlife Institute of India blamed poaching, increasing man-animal conflict, falling prey base and habitat loss for tiger as major reasons for the huge fall in tiger population between 2001 and 2006. But Gopal said it was not too late to save the tigers. “We need to take proactive steps.” Wildlife conservationist Valmik Thapar said efforts should be initiated as soon as possible to save the big cats. “It is now time to act and save tigers from human beings. We have to create inviolate areas for tigers and provide modern weapons to forest guards,” he said. Thapar added that vacancies of frontline forest staff should be filled fast. Gopal said that the census methodology adopted in 2002 was not foolproof. “Experts had doubted the pug mark counting methodology because it could lead to higher estimation. We adopted the modern technology of camera trap and DNA sampling to reach a near correct figure,” he said. source-Hindustan Times February 12, 2008 ...fading
light Sitting on a treehouse at the Ken River Lodge near the Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) in Madhya Pradesh, owner Shyamendra Singh looks at the lodge's tiger-sighting chart. Running his fingers over the blank boxes for January and February (till the third week), he says, "Panna is another Sariska in the making." There were only five direct tiger sightings between October 2007 and
February 19, 2008. "On October 10, we saw a tiger called 'Broken Tooth'.
We haven't seen him after that. In November and December, we saw a new
male tiger. But nothing after that," he says. The PTR director SK Krishnamurthy disagrees. "When we are accepting the NTC report for the whole country, then why aren't we accepting the Panna numbers?" The most recent sighting, he says, was on February 15 by his park staff and the park has conducted five 'tiger shows' for tourists. However, he is not very sure whether it was the same tiger or five different tigers. He blames the winter and PTR's valleys and gorges for the fall in sightings. Singh and Chundawat say that park authorities must acknowledge the
problem and introduce a female tiger without delay. The park's prey base
is very good and there is enough space for more than 25 tigers. If the mood at the Panna Tiger Reserve is low, it’s just the opposite at Uttarakhand’s Corbett Tiger Reserve. In 2002, Corbett had 134 tigers, while in the latest round, thirty more tigers were counted. But what sets Corbett apart is the way the park authority is planning to meet the present and future challenges. “We have a four-part agenda: Protection, management research, sustainable development and community participation,” says Rajeev Bhartari, Corbett’s director. To achieve these goals, the director has focussed on two most important elements: the forest guards and communities that stay around the park. The most-talked about change is ensuring that forest guards give their full time for patrolling. Earlier, after a day’s hard work, guards had to cook their meals and wash their clothes, pushing up their individual expenses and amounting to precious time being lost. Now, the authorities have started a mess system in different places of the park where a cook has been provided to take care of cooking and cleaning clothes. “The whole idea is that we will take care of their needs, while they take care of animals and people,” says Bhartari. Another innovation is long-distance patrolling. Guards are selected from different ranges and cover 10-15 kilometres per day, kitted with sleeping bags, arms and GPS. Other than patrolling, the groups specialise in ambush, and searching for sensitive locations and traps. “Getting the community residing in the outskirts of the park involved is also extremely important because it forms a buffer against the poachers. Many of the locals had never visited the park. Now, every Thursday, we take people from different villages around the park — so that they feel part of the conservation movement,” says Bhartari. The new tiger protection force has seven squads, which has ex-servicemen and 30 villagers. One more tiger dead On January 17, a tiger was found shot near the Satna division, a
hundred kilometres from the Panna park border. It was tranquilised by
the PTR officials and taken to Bhopal. "It succumbed to the injuries on
February 22," says G.S Chauhan, director, Van Vihar Bhopal. Was it a
Panna tiger?
|
The last few words of the definition differentiate between the sanctuary
and the national park. While a sanctuary may be of natural or zoological significance, a national park should
be of zoological association or importance. All kinds of destruction,
exploitation and removal of wildlife and any damage to the habitat of any
animal is strictly prohibited inside a national park. However, permit may be issued by the
Chief
Wildlife Warden after prior approval of the state government, if such
destruction, exploitation and removal of wildlife and its habitat is
considered essential for better management and improvement in the overall
conditions of wildlife in the national parks. Under no circumstances
grazing of cattle is permitted inside the national parks. 
Recently, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the National Board of Wildlife, the apex body which reviews all government policy for endangered fauna. Critical issues were to be discussed: a dam, which will wipe out the last habitat of the snow leopard, species that are on the verge of extinction and marine species that are being exploited for illegal trade. But the only item of interest for most reporters covering the meeting was: what did the Prime Minister say about the fate of the tiger?
The next day’s headlines screamed, “Tiger population down by half!” Never mind that this news had already been reported six months ago. Never mind that a crucial decision was taken at this meeting on diversion of a forest to a hydel project in Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, this month, will rule on the cutting down of 50,000 trees in Kalahandi, an elephant corridor, home to the golden gecko and the leopard to make way for a bauxite mining project.
Not one television channel or newspaper bothered to cover these issues. It was all about tigers.
The Indian media are obsessed with numbers. Worse still, the obsession is restricted to the numbers of only one species, the tiger. For better or for worse, the tiger has become the poster child for conservation in India. If you are reporting on wildlife, it has to be about tigers. The good news is that this is a huge leap from a media that did not even consider it worthwhile to report on wildlife issues except on page 3. The tiger obsession started in 2005, with the wiping out of an entire population of tigers in Sariska. And since then, the media have kept up the pressure, which, of course, is a good thing.
But the bad news is that the mindset has become rigidly established. If its news on wildlife then it has to be about the tiger. The inevitable banality sets in. Whenever there is a workshop on tigers in the capital, the newspapers have screaming headlines the next day about the tiger population declining. Anytime a tiger dies, even of natural causes, television channels go berserk. Since June 2007, when the Ministry of Environment and Forests first released a report on the number of tigers, newspapers and TV channels have flashed the same story at least 15 times. And each time it has been pitched as a new report on the tiger’s numbers.
And the banal seems to keep everyone happy. There’s no attempt to run in-depth reports. Why are the tiger numbers shrinking? What’s happening to its habitat? Why is it that some parks in the country have no breeding tigers? Why is the annual budget for tiger conservation in the country only Rs 28 crore? Compare that with the annual budget of say, the horticultural wing of the NDMC, which is Rs 100 crore. And you have some idea of just where the problems lie.
A second problem is that the focus on tiger numbers is at the cost of reporting on any other wild species. Take the Indian gharial. In international taxonomic listings it has now reached the Critically Endangered list. Its populations have fallen so drastically that it is as, or probably even more, endangered than the tiger. In Chhattisgarh, less than 200 wild buffaloes exist, putting the species on a worldwide endangered list. Few even know that India has cat family species other than the tiger and the leopard, such as the rusty spotted cat, the marbled cat or the fishing cat. The Indian bustard is now limited to less than 1,000 in number and confined to small pockets in Rajasthan and Maharashtra. No editor has ever come forward to save these species.And bad journalism has also meant bad conservation. National park managers, who oversee the management of areas rich in wildlife, shudder at the thought of the news of a tiger death leaking out. Any other species poached? Not a problem. Who’s bothered and who notices? Of course, reporting by the media is not the answer to all conservation problems in India, but it does set the tone for conservation policy in the country. It is because of the media’s relentless pursuit of tiger numbers that politicians and policy-makers realise the urgency of the problem. Would it make a difference if the media did reports on the rampant trade in star tortoises, sea horses and butterflies? Of course. It could set the conservation agenda and create the mindset that other species also need protection from extinction.
We look down upon sexism, we say no to racism. Maybe it’s time to say no to species-ism as well. It is time now for journalism that moves beyond numbers, for more in-depth analysis of why the numbers are dwindling. And not just for news of the sexy big cats.
Thousands of other species are dying a silent death in different corners of this country. Shouldn’t we care?
Bahar Dutt is a wildlife conservationist and environment editor with CNN-IBN.
Chidambaram takes care of tigers
The declining tiger population in the country figured in the budget proposals for 2008-09 with the government announcing a special package for the conservation of the big cats.
“The tiger is under grave threat,” Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said, while presenting the budget estimates in Parliament on Friday.
Mr. Chidambaram said that in order to redouble the government’s effort to protect the tiger, there was a special allocation of Rs.50 crore for the National Tiger Conservation Authority. The bulk of the grant would be used to raise a special armed Tiger Protection Force.
In the last budget the Minister announced an expert committee to study the impact of climate change on India and identify the measures that would be taken in the future to deal with climate change. “Even while adhering to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, we can and we must do a number of things in our self-interest,” he said, while advocating the need for promoting clean technology, reviewing fuel emission and efficiency regulations.
He said India could replace wood with solar energy as the fuel of common use, and encourage the use of gas which is the most benign hydrocarbon.
Text of Finance Minister's speech
|
|
|
Site
Editor:
Anjali Sahai (anjalisahai_60@rediffmail.com) |