MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRI NAMO NARAIN MEENA)
(a) The state wise / tiger reserve wise population of tigers as reported by States during the last All India Tiger estimation conducted in 2001-02 are at Annexures-1 and 2. The Sanctuary/National Park wise tiger estimation data are not collated at the Government of India level.
(b) Funding support under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger is provided to States having tiger reserves as per the Annual Plan of Operations received from them, based on reserve specific management plans, within the overall ambit of Project Tiger Guidelines, and not on the number of tigers in a reserve. State wise release of funds under the Project Tiger Scheme, during the last three years are given at Annexure-3.
(c) The Central Bureau of Investigation has conducted a Preliminary Assessment regarding disappearance of tigers only in the Sariska Tiger Reserve of Rajasthan and not in different wildlife Sanctuaries / Tiger Reserves.
(d),(e)&(f) The Central Bureau of Investigation in their preliminary assessment report, has indicated that there is no evidence of the presence of tiger in Sariska and the entire population seems to have become extinct primarily because of poaching. They have also informed that since July, 2002, at least 2-3 organized networks of poachers were involved in poaching of tigers & leopards in the tiger reserve.
The State has been advised by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, to ensure protection for tiger conservation through systemic improvement, while reiterating the earlier directives. The Wildlife Institute of India has been directed to undertake a detailed ecological study in the Sariska Tiger Reserve area for ascertaining the status of wild animals, assessment of resource dependency on the tiger reserve, apart from creating a database including capacity building of staff.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in their preliminary assessment report, has suggested certain short-term & long-term recommendations, which are given at Annexure-4.
ANNEXURE-1
POPULATION OF TIGERS IN THE COUNTRY AS REPORTED BY THE STATES
S.No. NAME OF THE STATE 2001-02##
1 ANDHRA PRADESH 192
2 ARUNACHAL PRADESH 61###
3 ASSAM 354
4 BIHAR 76
5 CHHATTISGARH 227
6 DELHI NIL
7 GOA 5
8 GUJARAT NIL
9 HARYANA NIL
10 HIMACHAL PRADESH NIL
11 JAMMU & KASHMIR NIL
12 JHARKHAND 34
13 KARNATAKA 401
14 KERALA 71
15 MADHYA PRADESH 710
16 MAHARASHTRA 238
17 MANIPUR NIL
18 MEGHALAYA 47
19 MIZORAM 28
20 NAGALAND 23
21 ORISSA 173
22 PUNJAB NIL
23 RAJASTHAN 58
24 SIKKIM NR
25 TAMIL NADU 60
26 TRIPURA NR
27 UTTARANCHAL 251
28 UTTAR PRADESH 284
29 WEST BENGAL 349
TOTAL 3642
N.R. Not reported by State.
# Tiger census was not carried out.
## Under compilation/vetting
### Only for Namdapha Tiger Reserve.
#### Figures included in undivided State.
Entire state not covered.
ANNEXURE-2
POPULATION OF TIGERS IN THE TIGER RESERVES AS REPORTED BY THE STATES
S.NO. NAME OF RESERVE 2001-02
1. BANDIPUR (KARNATAKA) 82
2. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH) 56
3. BHADRA (KARNATAKA) 35
4. Bori-SATPURA-PACHMARI (MADHYA PRADESH) 35
5. BUXA (WEST BENGAL) 31
6. CORBETT (UTTAR PRADESH) 137
7 DAMPHA (MIZORAM) 4
8. DUDHWA (UTTAR PRADESH) 76#
9. INDRAVATI (MADHYA PRADESH) 29
10. KANHA (MADHYA PRADESH) 127
11. KALAKAD (TAMIL NADU) 27
12. MANAS (ASSAM) 65#
13. MELGHAT (MAHARASHTRA) 73
14. NAGARJUNASAGAR (ANDHRA PRADESH) 67
15. NAMDHAPA (ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 61
16. NAMERI ( ASSAM) 26
17. Pakhui( ARUNACHAL PRADESH) -
18. PALAMAU (BIHAR) 32
19. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH) 31
20. PERIYAR (KERALA) 36
21. PENCH (MADHYA PRADESH) 40
22. PENCH (MAHARASHTRA) 14
23. RANTHOMBORE (RAJASTHAN) 35
24. SARISKA (RAJASTHAN) 22
25. SIMILIPAL (ORISSA) 99
26. SUNDERBANS (WEST BENGAL) 245
27. TADOBA (MAHARASHTRA) 38
28. VALMIKI (BIHAR) 53
TOTAL 1576
# Under compliation / vetting
N.R. Not reported by the State
ANNEXURE -3
STATEMENT SHOWING THE RELEASE OF CENTRAL ASSISTANCE UNDER PROJECT TIGER DURING 2002-03 TO 2004-2005
STATE-WISE RELEASE (Rs. in Lakhs)
Sl. No. Name of Tiger Reserve Range State 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
1. Andhra Pradesh 21.10 22.89 15.00
2. Arunachal Pradesh 35.875 68.75 35.00
3. Assam 65.70 75.00 -
4. Bihar 25.00 50.00 85.00
5. Chattisgarh 32.48 80.25 27.75
6. Karnataka 289.56 269.32 486.292
7 Kerala 63.75 120.68 105.75
8. Jharkhand 18.00 35.9915 72.5005
9. Madhya Pradesh 786.44 1103.414 582.43
10. Maharashtra 621.79 228.45 323.013
11. Mizoram 98.32 67.56 119.69
12. Orissa 32.88 151.91 116.4395
13. Rajasthan 294.92 158.330 75.00
14. Tamil Nadu 125.00 35.00 80.00
15. Uttaranchal 168.00 200.91 200.12
16. Uttar Pradesh 32.75 173.585 175.215
17. West Bengal 168.33 225.17 325.49
Total 2879.895 3067.2105 2824.69
ANNEXURE-4
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Short-Term
(i) With the consent of the State Governments of Rajasthan and Delhi, the CBI should urgently take over investigation of Sariska Tiger Reserve Crime No. 11/91 dated 15.03.2005, 45/91 dated 11.03.2005, 11/92 dated 15.03.2005, 11/93 dated 15.03.2005 and Kamla Market PS, New Delhi FIR No. 82/2005 dated 31.01.2005. Any other case arising out of incidents of poaching shall also be registered and investigated by CBI for which a general consent may be given by the State Governments.
(ii) Extensive search of all the villages within the Tiger Reserve area should be conducted for recovery of steel traps, guns and other equipments, used for killing wild animals.
(iii) An alert may be issued to all the Tiger Reserves about the modus operandi of the poachers and for recovery of such steel traps, wherever possible.
(iv) Searches may be conducted in all possible places where steel traps are being manufactured and supplied to the poachers.
(v) The local Police should be sensitized and their active participation ensured in anti-poaching enforcement operations, in association with Forest Department staff.
(vi) Provisions of Section 34 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 which requires every gun licence holder residing within 10 kms. area of the Sanctuary, to apply to the Chief Wildlife Warden, for registration should be strictly enforced.
(vii) The incumbency profile of the staff of Sariska Tiger Reserve should be analysed and transfer of those who have stayed long enough or are suspected to have developed vested interests, should be ordered.
(viii) The forest guards should be supplied proper uniform, lathis and other necessary equipments.
(ix) Anti-poaching Squads should be constituted in each range, consisting of at least ¼ regular armed Policemen.
Long-Term
(x) An administrative overhaul of the Sariska Tiger Reserve by recruiting younger field staff and training the staff in enforcement activities.
(xi) More than 50% staff of the Tiger Reserve are work charge employees who were originally recruited as casual labourers for plantation of trees. There is need to increase the number of regular employees of the Tiger Reserve by recruiting more number of Forest Guards to cover inaccesible areas and to maintain effective watch against continuous human intervention.
(xii) The inflow of tourists and vehicular traffic needs to be controlled and regulated. As already directed vide letter dated 09.04.2003 of Director, Project Tiger, in place of open jeeps and smaller vehicles, medium sized buses with closed bodies and sliding windows should be used for the pilgrims.
(xiii) Immediate action should be taken to get a favourable judicial order pertaining to use of by-pass already constructed, to avoid increased vehicular traffic on State Highway No. 13.
(xiv) A time-bound programme for relocation of villages within the National Park area should be taken up while return of relocated villagers to original settlement areas should be prevented.
(xv) There is no possibility of Tigers relocating to Sariska because of absence of a fringe population and link with any tiger habitat. Hence after implementation of the short-term measures suggested above, there should be a programme for reintroduction of tigers which should be executed under the aegis of a scientific body.
(xvi) The SIT observed that there is no scientific monitoring programme, because of which the park authorities failed to track the dwindling population. Hence, it is recommended that scientific monitoring protocol should be implemented in respect of habitat, prey and predator. The park management should do periodic assessment of all the recorded data atleast on a bimonthly basis.
