LANDSCAPE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES.
Interviewees (29) Level of activity
NGOs = 5 (17.8%) Federal, State and Local
Experts = 5 (14.3%):
Consultant (3), Environmental lawyer (1), University professor/consultant (1)
Federal and State
State Forest Departments and Indian Forest Service = 9 (32.1%)
State (Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh) (7) and local TR-level (2)
Policy makers = 2 (7.1%)
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, National Tiger Conservation Authority
Federal
Case Study
Tiger conservation in India cannot be considered separately from forest management history, including the legacies of colonial forestry and the struggle of forest dwellers’ over forest rights and access to forests. In this section we consider the legacy of tiger conservation approaches, and the predominance of “fortress conservation” implemented through the actions of the FD, even after favourable participatory conservation and development policies were enacted.
Approaches to tiger conservation adopted by the FD have been criticized as exclusionary conservation, governed by a distant central authority without participation of local people (Rastogi et al. 2012). Based on the scientific argument that tigers needs large human-free areas to survive and reproduce, the exclusionary approach was favoured in core zones of state tiger reserves (TRs), which were to remain free from human settlement and harvesting activities. Significantly, this policy has been operationalized in part through the voluntary relocations of villages in reserve core areas while TRs remained open to research and tourism.
National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) is the main governing body for Project Tiger, a tiger conservation programme launched in 1974 as a centrally sponsored scheme by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. NTCA, a statutory body of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) provides a supervisory and coordinating role for tiger conservation implemented through the wildlife wings of state forest departments in 18 tiger states, and an expanding network of TRs (48 at present). The 1972 Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) is the main legal tool for establishing protected areas under which the central government may declare an area a national park or a wildlife sanctuary. This act facilitated an increase in the Indian PA network, including the tiger reserve system. However, the WPA with its two Amendments (2002 and 2006), must be interpreted simultaneously with the 1927 Indian Forests Act, the 1980 Forest Conservation Act, the 1986 Environment Protection Act, the 2002-2016 National Wildlife Action Plan and the 1988 National Forest Policy that together form the legal grounding for forest and wildlife conservation in India (TERI 2015). Although enacted during colonial rule, the 1927 Indian Forests Act forms the basis for modern forestry and conservation in India, including the “establishment and demarcation of
forest boundaries, trespass, cutting and control of movement of forest products” (Springate-Baginski & Blaikie, 2007). It also consolidates the power of forest officials for regulation of the use of public lands (Ebrahim 2004). The 1980 Forest Conservation Act does not allow for conversion of forests to non-forest land cover and so increases the power of the central government over forest resources. The 1986 Environment Protection Act gives central government the power to restrict operation and establishment of industries harmful for the environment. It can serve as an instrument for protection of the corridors and forests outside of the protected areas through the declaration of eco-sensitive zones (that must be declared within a 10km radius around a protected area) to restrict industrial activity (TERI 2015). Policy change is being driven by a variety of actors. The Supreme Court of India has a significant role in governance of forests and wildlife, giving more power to the centre and curtailing rights of the state governments when needed (TERI, 2015).
The state FDs, as implementing agency of MOEF&CC, were founded during British rule in 1865. British colonial rulers established centralised forest management with scientific forestry, and also created the hierarchical organizational structure of the FD (Kumar & Kant 2006). Despite of changing roles of the FD through its history, there has been an insignificant change of FD organizational structure from colonial times to the present (Kumar & Kant 2005).
The FD has a territorial wing with a mandate of forest management and timber extraction, and a wildlife wing with the primary aim of forest and biodiversity conservation. The Indian Forest Service (IFS) (established during colonial times as the Imperial Forest Service) is one of three civil services in India today, recruited and trained (for two years) by the central government (IFS 2012). Two thirds of all the top posts in a state FD are filled by the central level IFS officers. State level cadre takes one third of the top state level positions on the promotion basis (Fleischman 2012).
Higher-level forest officials include a state FD head - Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, below which is the Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests and finally, Divisional Forest Officers (operational at a district level). In TRs, at the top is a Field director, under whose responsibility are Additional Conservators of Forest, below which are Divisional Forest Officers (responsible for a division). Lower level or “front-
line” staff are: Range forest officer or Ranger (responsible for a range), Deputy rangers, Foresters 10or Round Forest Officer (responsible for a round) and finally, beat guards (responsible for beat – the smallest administrative unit further composed of the smallest forest units called compartments). Every beat guard usually has one or two temporary workers at his disposal. Temporary workers come from the local villagers.
The higher level officers and TR administration are placed in the urban centres (e.g. Mumbai and Nagpur for Maharashtra Forest Department), while lower level staff is located directly in the TRs. Between higher level officers and lower level FD staff, there are frequently large gaps not only in the spatial terms, but also in the social status driven by elitism, differences in education, experience, language and background (Sood & Gupta 2007). The main legislation and historical turning points are listed in the Table 3.2.