Question : Tiger Conservation Areas

(a) whether as per a survey released by the Conservation Assured/Tiger Standards (CA/TS), at least a third of the 112 tiger conservation areas across 11 countries are severely at risk of losing their tigers and if so, the details thereof;
(b) the details of the areas mentioned in the said survey along with the reasons mentioned for the loss of tigers/risk of losing tigers;
(c) the assessment made by CA/TS in their survey on India regarding the conservation of tigers;
(d) the details of the schemes implemented so far along with the funds provided/spent by the Government on protection of tigers during each of the last three years and the current year, State/UT-wise; and
(e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to meet the global standards on tiger conservation in the country?

MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE

(DR. HARSH VARDHAN)


(a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) :-A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

***

STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *402 ON TIGER CONSERVATION AREAS DUE FOR REPLY ON 23.03.2018


(a) Yes. The said survey has suggested that 35% of sites are at risk of serious declines in or even loss of their tigers

(b) As per the Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS) survey, percent average scores for assessing management have been presented regionally as East Asia (China and Russia), South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and India) and South East Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand). A score of 75% and above has been interpreted as fairly strong management. Only 39 sites out of the 112 sites surveyed have a score of below 75% and 20 of these sites are in South-East Asia. The reasons stated for threat to tigers are as follows:

(i) Lack of adequate management infrastructure to support staff activities.
(ii) Insufficient staff to patrol sites effectively.
(iii) Lack of management planning.
(iv) Lack of systems for mitigating human-wildlife conflict.
(v) Lack of active tiger and prey habitat management systems which inter alia includes tiger monitoring.
(vi) Inadequately addressed social aspects of conservation.

(c) In context of India, following observations have been made:
i. All sites surveyed in India have management plan.
ii. 49 out of 50 tiger reserve have a score ranging from 82%-100%.
iii. Forest outside tiger reserves (where intensity of tiger conservation specific management is far less intensive) scored between 57% to 88%.
iv. The Indian Management Effectiveness Evaluation of tiger reserves (MEETR) has been highlighted as a specially designed tool for tiger conservation areas under the Protected Areas Management Effectiveness (PAME).
v. Project Tiger has been highlighted as an investment in the effective management of tiger conservation areas for many decades, besides a concerted effort to recover tigers in India based on the need to provide safe havens through a network of tiger reserves.
vi. Out of the 72 sites surveyed in India only 17 were found to be below 75% benchmark. This included only one tiger reserve namely Indravati, which is plagued by left wing extremism which hampers day-to-day management.
vii. 7 sites, largely forest divisions were between 51%-61%: 5 were between 61%-70% and 4 were between 71%-74%.

(d) The CA|TS assessment is not funded by the Government of India. However, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger, the Government has released the following amount to tiger range States during the last three years and the current year: