The SC's recent verdict on tiger safari in Corbett Tiger Reserve marks a crucial step in wildlife conservation. Amid concerns over illegal construction and deforestation, the ruling underscores the intrinsic link between tigers and forests, stressing the need for effective habitat protection and restoration measures
The Supreme Court’s order last week to ban tiger safaris in the Core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve, while permitting them in buffer and peripheral areas, represents a significant judgment concerning the conservation of flora and fauna. Also, it underscores the impact on the ecological services provided by forests, including their carbon sequestration potential. A three-judge bench led by Justice BR Gavai criticised former Uttarakhand Forest Minister Harak Singh Rawat and former Divisional Forest Officer Kishan Chand for permitting illegal construction and deforestation.
The bench emphasised, “The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes without the tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over the forest, and the forest should protect all its tigers.” The court further expressed concern over poaching and illegal destruction in tiger habitats and established a committee comprising former DGF Chandra Prakash Goyal and two serving officers of Uttarakhand, Anup Malik and Samir Sinha, occupying the positions of head of forest force and chief wildlife warden respectively.
The committee has been given three months to propose suggestions for more effective management of tiger reserves in India, assess the cost of restoring damages inflicted on Corbett tiger habitat, and propose measures to recover damages from those responsible for such destruction. It is also tasked with making recommendations regarding restrictions on ecotourism facilities in the best interest of protection. Moreover, the court directed the CBI to conclude its investigation into the criminal intent of individuals responsible for the destruction of the tiger habitat in the renowned Corbett Tiger Reserve.
During the case hearing, the court also took into consideration the suggestions provided by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). Based on the feedback from these two national agencies, the court has allowed the opening of safaris for rescued tigers and cubs within the buffer and peripheral areas of the core of the tiger reserves, while prohibiting the housing of zoo-born tigers in such facilities.
It is important to note that buffer areas are equally important as core areas and are legally designated as such. Both core and buffer areas constitute the tiger reserve. When a tiger loses its territory to a more dominant one, it often gets pushed into the buffer area. In many reserves, such as Corbett, the habitats in buffer areas are comparable to those in the core.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, prohibits the opening of any safari or rescue center in buffer areas. Section 38-O of the Act stipulates that tiger reserves must be kept inviolate, meaning that management efforts should ensure that both the core and buffer areas of the tiger reserve remain undisturbed.
The NTCA, in collaboration with state forest departments, has been consistently working to relocate villages from within tiger reserves and resettle families outside. It would be contradictory to remove human and livestock populations from tiger reserves only to open them for safaris. Studies on tiger occupancy surveys indicate that tigers do not inhabit areas occupied by humans and livestock. The social dynamics of tiger territories suggest that we require 800 to 1,200 square kilometres of undisturbed habitat to sustain a viable tiger population, provided there is an adequate prey population.
Such areas could support 70 to 75 tigers, including breeding females but excluding cubs. Furthermore, the tiger population would be genetically robust if two such source population areas were connected by corridors.
In October 2012, the NTCA issued SC-approved guidelines for creating tourist facilities and regulating visits in core areas. These guidelines stipulated that not more than 20 per cent of the core area in any tiger reserve should be open to visits. Additionally, they restricted the number of safari vehicles and the duration of visits, and prohibited the construction of any tourist infrastructure within the tiger reserve. The proliferation of tourist resorts outside the reserve has disrupted the movement of elephants, leading to an increase in conflict cases between humans and wild animals.
Often, the forest areas within corridors are not managed by the Wildlife wing of the Forest Department. These areas are also interspersed with human settlements, where multiple activities take place. Effective management of corridors is crucial, and new economic activities such as industries and mining are prohibited to minimise human presence.
I am uncertain whether the Pakharo area, where the tiger safari is constructed, is in the core or buffer zone of the Corbett Tiger Reserve. However, what I am certain of is that it serves as the gateway for tiger movement towards the Lansdowne forest division, where tigers breed in substantial numbers. Also, it forms a corridor for tiger movement through the Lansdowne and Haridwar forest divisions, connecting to the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, another source population.
These landscapes are also vital for the movement of elephants. I have observed a proliferation of tourist resorts between Pakharo and Lansdowne, with many of them fenced off to prevent access by wild animals, especially elephants. Numerous island fences within elephant corridors hinder the movement of herds, leading to human-elephant conflicts. Unfortunately, what the Minister and DFO have done is erect another island fence, which will undoubtedly impede elephant movement within the Corbett Tiger Reserve itself.
I have had the opportunity to visit the site where the habitat inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve has been destroyed. More than 6000 Sal trees have been felled to make way for water holes and to provide a perimeter fence for the safari to prevent the entry of wild elephant herds. I understand that higher authorities permitted DFO Kishan Chand to fell less than 200 trees. However, I fail to comprehend why a DFO would continue cutting trees far beyond the permitted limit, with his superiors remaining silent spectators. Why did they not visit the site when the destruction was ongoing? In my assessment, this is a complete failure of administration in Uttarakhand.
These forests are extremely dense, with nearly 0.8 canopy density, and the felled Sal trees had a girth of more than 2 meters. One of the tasks assigned to the Supreme Court-appointed committee is to assess the cost of restoring the tiger habitat. My understanding of restoration encompasses not only the removal of all structures constructed using angled iron, RCC, etc, used in creating fences, buildings, and bunds for the water holes, along with the spillover structures, but also the regrowth of the habitat previously dominated by more than 6000 Sal trees and other hardwood species.
The natural setting of the area, which has been disturbed by cutting and filling of earth, can never be fully restored. Artificially grown trees in an area of equal extent can never serve as proper compensation.
Forest departments have a poor track record of successfully implementing compensatory afforestation. I am more than certain that the Sal and other miscellaneous species lost in the destruction can never be replaced. These forests are a gift from nature, and once lost, they cannot be regenerated by human efforts. The destruction of forests and the fragmentation of habitats and corridors are irreversible.
Relatively pristine forest areas with high biodiversity values across states are designated as sanctuaries and national parks, commonly referred to as protected areas (PAs). Various laws and guidelines are in place to ensure the integrity of PAs is maintained. While forests are often burdened with rights and concessions, as well as the rights of dwellers and tribal communities, PAs generally have fewer such encumbrances. Some PAs, like Corbett National Park, are also designated as Tiger Reserves. Many rivers in the central Indian landscape and peninsular India originate in forested areas, typically within PAs.
Air and water are among the most crucial ecological services provided by forests. The primary reason for conserving forests and wildlife is to ensure that these ecological services are not disrupted. Without them, our existence on this planet would be uncertain.
Ministers like Harak Singh Rawat and officers like Kishan Chand have the capability to pave the way for more safaris and rescue centers in the buffers of tiger reserves or any other protected areas (PAs). The court’s approval for buffer and peripheral forests opens the door to potential misuse. Under the guise of road formation, maintenance, creation and upkeep of water holes, and removal of invasive species, heavy machinery such as JCBs for earth cutting and filling are already being utilized in many PAs. The practice of earth cutting in PAs must come to an end. The Forest Conservation Act Amendment of 2023 has classified zoos and safaris as forestry activities, eliminating the need for approval to establish these facilities in forested areas. Without proper regulation of this provision, officers who favor the use of JCBs may end up causing destruction to the forests.
(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) Karnataka)
