Road connectivity work in tiger reserve area infuriates activists

TNN | May 17, 2013
COIMBATORE: Hardly two months after the Sathyamangalam wildlife sanctuary was classified as a tiger reserve by the Union environment ministry, three new roads being laid in the forest area has invited the wrath of green activists. They believe the roads will disrupt and disturb wildlife in the region. Interestingly, two of the three road schemes are being promoted by the Tamil Nadu forest department itself, which had pursued the tiger reserve status, to protect and preserve the forest areas bordering Karnataka.

The new roads are Malliammandurgam road linking Kadambur West beat and TN Palayam range, Belathur forest road linking Belathur beat and Thalavadi range and Gundri road linking Gundri beat and TN Palayam range. They are in different stages of construction and if fully implemented they would be detrimental to both traditional forest dwellers and animals. The department is going ahead with the forest roads despite protests by green activists,'' said K Mohanraj of Tamil Nadu green movement.

According to forest department sources, the Malliammandurgam road is about 8 km long. It starts from Kadambur and is situated within the core areas of the tiger reserve. According to local MLA PL Sundaram, the road construction is not illegal as it was permitted by the district collector when he heard that the tribal people were transporting construction material using donkeys to build a school in the forest village. The permission to construct the school was given by the forest department itself. The road is a life line for the local community and it can be justified under Forest Rights Act,'' he said.

"Using the school as an excuse, they are building a permanent road, disturbing the flora and fauna in the region. This will ultimately be detrimental to the tribals," argues M Jayachandran, an activist.

"Forty non-tribal families own about 350 acres of patta land at Malliammandurgam village. There is no electricity in the village driving most out of the area. Only about 15 people actually live there. There is talk that 150 acres have been purchased by outsiders and they are building road connectivity to facilitate real estate, farm houses and resorts," alleges Mohanraj.

The Belathur forest road is 4km of which 3km passes through the reserve. "This metal topped road was built illegally by engineering division of the forest department. This road work is going on stealthy by finishing work inside the forest first to avoid detection. Only a detailed investigation can bring out the truth," says Mohanraj.

The Gundri road from Anjanai junction to Gundri via Valamarathur is 9.6km. It was just a mud road but now it has been asphalted with numerous bridges and culverts inside the wildlife sanctuary by engineering division of the forest department. This road work is being conducted at a cost of Rs.351.61 lakh, funded by Bharat Nirman Phase II. As per Bharat Nirman, every habitation of 1,000 population and above (500 and above in hilly and tribal areas) would be provided with all-weather road connectivity. The forest department said it renovated the road to provide transport facilities for residents of the hilly region.

"Forest roads reduce the habitat quality for wildlife, provides easy access to hunting and poaching and increases human-wildlife conflict,'' says Jayachandran. No clearances were sought from the National Board of Wildlife or ministry of environment and forests,'' he points out.

K Melkani, additional principal chief conservator of forests dealing with tiger reserves, was unavailable for comment despite repeated attempts.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/coimbatore/Road-connectivity-work-in-tiger-reserve-area-infuriates-activists/articleshow/20097892.cms?intenttarget=no

Straying tiger pits wildlife activists against locals in Bhubaneswar

Press Trust of India | Updated: May 10, 2013
Bhubaneswar: A wild male tiger, which strayed into the Nandankanan Zoo in Bhubaneswar, has put the Orissa government in a spot as locals demand that it should be kept in the zoo while wildlife activists are opposed to it.

As wildlife activists sought the release of the big cat in the wild describing its captivity as illegal, people living near the zoo and adjoining areas launched a signature campaign against the release of the tiger, fearing it may cause harm.

"We fear that the tiger will again return and create problem for human beings," Balaram Lenka, a local resident, said.

The signature campaign has been launched by "Nandan Kanan Suraksha Parishad" headed by Bijoy Patra. An advocate, Patra filed a PIL in Orissa High Court against any move to release the tiger.

Lenka said though the six-year-old healthy Royal Bengal Tiger had not attacked any human being or cow in the area, pugmarks were detected for three years creating panic among people.

"Fortunately, the tiger has been trapped due to its own fault. Its release may create problem in future," the residents of Baranga and Dadha villages said.

However, wildlife activists oppose any move to keep the tiger in captivity as it would violate the law of the land.

"We wish to lodge a strong protest about attempts of the state government to retain the tiger in zoo to bolster its tiger gene pool for captive breeding," said Biswajit Mohanty, a member of the National Board for Wildlife.

In a letter to the Additional PCCF & Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Mohanty said: "It is a blatant violation of wildlife laws as well as the SOP (standard operating procedure) issued by NTCA."

A perfectly healthy male tiger which has obviously strayed from Satkosia Tiger Reserve, the nearest known tiger habitat, is now doomed for life, he pointed out, adding that captivity of the tiger in zoo would amount to clear violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Mohanty said keeping the tiger in a cage would violate Section 38I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Quoting the act, he said "... No zoo shall acquire, sell or transfer any wild animal or captive animal specified in Schedule I and II except with the previous permission of the Authority."

This apart, capturing a wild tiger and retaining it illegally without any attempt to release it amounts to "hunting" which is prohibited under section 9 of the WPA, 1972, wildlife activists pointed out.

This offence is punishable under Section 51 (1) of the WPA, 1972 by a jail term of minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 7 years as it relates to a Schedule I species, they said.

To tackle such situations of straying of tigers into human dominated landscapes, NTCA had thoughtfully issued a Standard Operating Procedure recently which lays down protocols of how to handle such instances.

Meanwhile, the Odisha government has set up a technical committee. "We will go by the recommendation of the TC," said chief wildlife warden J D Sharma, adding NTCA guideline suggests that wild animals should be kept in wilderness with radio collars so that its movement can be tracked.

While there is a debate over the retention of the tiger in the zoo, experts feel that release of the wild cat requires careful consideration.

"We should not take any hasty decision on the tiger. We have to consider a lot of issues for safety of the tiger like what are the circumstances which brought him here. What are the threats the animal faced in natural habitation. Tiger is a highly territorial animal. It is not safe to release it in a new place," said Odisha's former wildlife warden Saroj Patnaik.

Patnaik says, "If this tiger is kept in zoo, it should be kept away from public display and with minimum human contact."

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/straying-tiger-pits-wildlife-activists-against-locals-in-bhubaneswar-365146

Contour canal for Parambikulam project turns death trap for wildlife

P. OPPILI, The Hindu

Canal runs to a distance of nearly 50 km: naturalists

• The project is maintained by the State Public Works Department

An open contour canal constructed during the 1960s for the Parambikulam Aliyar Project in Coimbatore district has become a death trap for wildlife in the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR), Pollachi.

Naturalists and environmentalists say the canal runs to a distance of nearly 50 km, of which a 45-km stretch passes through the ATR.

During seasonal migration and dry periods, elephants, tigers, leopards, sloth bears, wild dogs, Indian Gaur, sambhar deer and spotted deer come to the canal for drinking water. If the animals fall into the canal, it would be difficult to rescue them.

The Project is maintained by the State Public Works Department, which began refurbishing the canal as there were many leaks in it. The work began nearly a year ago.

A. Rangarajan, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Green Movement, said his organisation had sent a letter to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) demanding a joint inspection of the place with representatives from the PWD, Forest Department and the National Board for Wildlife. The CEC had also sent a letter to the Chief Secretary to arrange for a site inspection.

However, nothing has been done in this regard, Mr. Rangarajan charged. He said the canal, apart from fragmenting the forest, leads to death and maiming of wildlife, which will be more than a dozen annually.

The Forest Department had divided the 49-km canal into eight stretches and conducted a survey.

During the survey, officials recorded the presence of at least half a dozen species of wildlife along the stretch.

Making provisions for the wildlife to cross over from one side to the other is the recommendation for the first stretch which begins from the Power House till the entrance of the tunnel 1; the second stretch is the entrance of the tunnel 1 where the recommendation was to erect railings.

The other recommendations included installing scalable slopes and railings to prevent wildlife from falling into the canal and facility for wildlife to access water along the canal.

When contacted, wildlife authorities said they have requested the PWD to provide platforms to facilitate animals to drink water safely from the canal.

Similarly, they have given a few designs to the PWD authorities, which would help the wildlife cross the canal without any problem.

“Wildlife concerns are well taken care of by the department,” a senior official added.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/contour-canal-for-parambikulam-project-turns-death-trap-for-wildlife/article4685389.ece

Making space for the tiger a reality

PRAVEEN BHARGAV

WAY OUT: A participatory community-based tourism plan can help reduce pressure on core areas.
Photo: Special Arrangement

Promoters of development projects in forest areas can be made to compensate by creating buffer zones around sanctuaries through minor modifications to the Forest Conservation Act guidelines
The contentious issue of notifying buffer areas around tiger reserves came under sharp debate when the Supreme Court issued interim directions to stop tourism in core or Critical Tiger Habitats (CTHs) and notify buffer areas. However, after the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) filed comprehensive guidelines on tiger conservation and tourism on October 15, 2012, the Supreme Court permitted the reopening of tourism strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Visitation is now permissible in existing tourism zones subject to a maximum of 20 per cent of core areas being used. But the important issue of creating viable buffers around a core area lost focus even though the NTCA guidelines harp on its importance to sustain tiger populations.

In most tiger reserves, core areas comprise notified sanctuaries and/or national parks, which are to be managed as areas free of incompatible human activity. Reserved forests, deemed forests and other unencumbered government land with some vegetation immediately abutting the CTHs are to be notified as buffer areas, which can act as “shock absorbers” for core areas.

Viable buffers

While notifying such contiguous forests as buffer areas may be relatively easy, the real challenge is in creating viable buffers wherever private agricultural lands abut core areas. Merely notifying such areas as buffer or peripheral areas without any viable habitat, as is being done now, may not only fail to deliver the imagined benefits for tiger conservation but also lead to hostility and loss of support from the local community.

Yet, acquiring large extent of private land abutting tiger reserves, to insulate the entire core area with a complete “wrap around” buffer that can support wildlife might be impractical. So is there a way forward to resolve this important issue?

An innovative mechanism can be created within the current legal framework with some very minor modifications to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 Guidelines. This could greatly contribute to creating additional areas as viable forested buffers around tiger reserves.

Presently, most development project promoters seeking diversion of forest land for a non-forestry purpose have to identify an equivalent area of non-forest land. This has to be transferred and mutated in favour of the forest department for declaration as reserved forest/Protected Forest (PF). The project must also deposit funds for taking up compensatory afforestation in such lands. Stage II clearance under the Forest Act is to be granted only after compliance of this important condition. As far as possible, such areas should be contiguous with reserved forests for effective management. This is mandated under Chapter 3 of the Act’s guidelines.

Legal loophole

Unfortunately, in most cases, this important condition is relaxed based on certification by the State that sufficient/appropriate non-forest land is not available. In such cases a simpler condition of compensatory afforestation in degraded forest land twice the area diverted is insisted upon. This legal loophole has meant the loss of an excellent opportunity to create viable buffer areas as State governments routinely provide this exemption to most projects.

To facilitate the creation of viable forested buffers, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) must first revise the current guidelines appropriately to plug this loophole. A new mechanism must then be created whereby the Tiger Reserve Authority in each tiger reserve State identifies private (non-forest) land immediately abutting a reserve, based on scientific and objective criteria, to be developed as ecologically viable buffers.

Private enclosures within contiguous reserve forests can also be identified. This data must be shared with development project promoters to explore the possibility of them privately acquiring the lands to comply with the Forest Act guidelines.

There could be two possible scenarios under which this idea could be enabled:

1. The owner(s) of such identified farm land may be willing to sell the land at prevailing market prices (which the project proponent /owner mutually agree upon as in any private land transaction). The project promoter has to then transfer and mutate the land in favour of the Forest Department for notification as a reserve forest/PF, as mandated by existing guidelines or even as a conservation reserve under Section 36-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 under the proposed new mechanism or;
2. The owner(s) may not be willing to sell but may be agreeable — with suitable benefits — to develop it as a private/community reserve based on an appropriate management plan. There are enabling provisions in the Wildlife Act, which allow for any individual/group of individuals or community volunteering to conserve wildlife and its habitat to approach the government for a notification. While the land will continue to be owned by the individual/community, the land use will be agreed upon jointly with the Forest Department based on a management plan.

Participatory plan

This will enable appropriate development of the private/community reserve or the land mutated in favour of the Forest Department, by creating suitable vegetation with mixed plantation/bamboo/grassy patches/salt licks, etc to attract wildlife. The funding for this can come from money deposited by the project promoter for compensatory afforestation. The individual or community could then be encouraged and assisted to develop a participatory community-based tourism plan with benefit sharing as envisaged in the new NTCA guidelines. The tourism pressure on core areas can thus be reduced progressively.

All that is required are some minor modifications in the Forest Act Guidelines to include the terms “Core or Critical Tiger Habitat,” “Protected Area” and “Community Reserve” to enable identification and transfer of lands adjacent to these areas to the Forest Department by the project promoter. But for this idea to work, the MoEF must issue a proper clarification to States that, henceforth, transfer of non-forest land will not ordinarily be condoned.

This innovative mechanism, which is within the framework of existing laws, could open up tremendous opportunities for increasing viable buffers and creating additional habitats for wildlife where it is most needed — around tiger reserves/protected areas. It will not only help in achieving the true objective of compensatory afforestation, but also deliver benefits to local communities from the increasing economic opportunities of non-consumptive tourism outside core areas.

(Praveen Bhargav is a trustee of Wildlife First and has served on the National Board for Wildlife.)

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/making-space-for-the-tiger-a-reality/article4630903.ece

Environment Ministry rejects proposal to expand Bhopal-Nagpur highway

PTI | 7 Apr, 2013
NEW DELHI: The Environment Ministry has rejected a National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) proposal seeking expansion of a road connecting Bhopal and Nagpur that cuts through a proposed tiger reserve in Madhya Pradesh.

The Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife, chaired by Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan, has accepted an expert panel report which said that four-laning of NH-69 within the Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary "cannot be permitted currently" as tigers and other wild animals will be "more vulnerable" to be killed on the road, MoEF sources said.

The decision came amid tussle between the two sides over highway projects through forest areas.

The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) had earlier endorsed the report prepared by NBWL Standing Committee Member Prerna Singh Bindra and NTCA official Rajeev Sharma.

The NHAI had sought denotification of 58.5 hectares of forest land in Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary to upgrade the two-lane NH-69 to four lanes to facilitate "higher, faster and night time" traffic between the cities of Bhopal and Nagpur.

Rejecting the proposal, the report had said the impact of roads went beyond wild animals ending up as road kill.

"Forests on the sides of the roads become heavily degraded and over time, their usage by wild animals diminishes. Besides, they allow access into wilderness areas, bringing with them ancillary development. Further expansion of the road will only accelerate these," it had said.

National Highway-69 goes through 44.6 km of forest area including 12.44 km through Ratapani sanctuary which is very close to Bhopal.

Admitting that the condition of the road is "very bad", the report has said the best alternative was to repair the road and strengthen it.

The sanctuary has been proposed as a tiger reserve and accorded in-principle approval by the NTCA. The last census indicates presence of 16 tigers in the sanctuary.

The team headed by Bindra has recommended that notifying of Ratapani Tiger Reserve be expedited for more focused wildlife management and conservation of wild cat.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/infrastructure/environment-ministry-rejects-proposal-to-expand-bhopal-nagpur-highway/articleshow/19425279.cms

Centre rejects Satpura tiger reserve denotification proposal

PTI | Apr 6, 2013

NEW DELHI: The Environment Ministry has rejected a proposal seeking denotification of land inside Satpura tiger reserve in Madhya Pradesh for religious functions and roads, officials said here.

The Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) chaired by Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan has rejected the proposal citing that the proposed area is an "important source site" for tigers, they said.

"The area proposed to be denotified is within the core tiger habitat of a reserve that functions as an important source site for tigers," NBWL Standing Committee member Prerna Singh Bindra said.

"Besides, Satpura is a botanically important 'relict' site and a faunal bridge representing unique floral species common to Western Ghats and the Himalayas. Such a denotification is unacceptable," she said.

Mahadev Mela Samiti Pachmarhi, which had demanded denotification of the land, said the annual religious fair is attended by lakhs of people every year and basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation and medical facilities have to be provided to them in the forests in case of emergency.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Centre-rejects-Satpura-tiger-reserve-denotification-proposal/articleshow/19407436.cms

Power project stuck as TN fails to constitute wildlife board

K A Shaji, TNN Apr 1, 2013
COIMBATORE: Tamil Nadu's failure to constitute a State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) is posing problems for at least three major projects mooted by the AIADMK government, including the much anticipated 2X500MW Coal-based Thermal Power Plant at Tuticorin.

According to top sources in the Union ministry of environment and forests, three proposals that came up for clearance were turned down at a recent meeting of the standing committee for National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), which said these were submitted directly by the state without getting the mandatory approval of the state board. The committee then found that Tamil Nadu was the only one state in the country that had not constituted the SBWL. Like NBWL, which frames wildlife protection policies at the national level, SBWL is expected to undertake the task at the state level. Any project that could have an impact on a protected wildlife area has to get the clearance of both SBWL and NBWL.

The refusal of NBWL to discuss the Tuticorin power plant mooted jointly by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and the state department of power happens at a time when Tamil Nadu is facing an extraordinary energy crisis. According to NBWL standing committee member and senior wildlife scientist A J T Johnsingh, there is no option left before the state government other than to constitute SBWL at the earliest. The NBWL clearance is mandatory for the Tuticorin project as it comes within the 10 km periphery of Mullakadu range of forests.

Proposals for a bridge on Chennai-Pulicat Road and a fish landing centre at Periyamongagodu near Thiruvallur are similarly stuck as NBWL standing committee has refused clearance. While 1.11 hectare of forest land from Pulicat Bird Sanctuary will have to be transferred for constructing the bridge on Pasiyavaram Road, the fish landing centre needs 0.65 hectare of forest land from the same sanctuary. NBWL will look at the proposals only after these are cleared by its state counterpart. "According to Section-6 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (amended in 2006), each state government is bound to constitute a state board for wildlife under the chairmanship of the chief minister or administrator in the case of a Union territory. It is a curious case that Tamil Nadu is lacking such a board. It is high time the state government constituted the board as interests of wildlife must be protected while undertaking bigger development projects,'' said K Mohan Raj of Tamil Nadu Green Movement.

According to Johnsingh, Uttarakhand was giving Tamil Nadu company till last year. "But that state constituted the board in 2012 leaving Tamil Nadu as the only one without the board. Setting up the SBWL will help boost conservation and ensure protection of forest wealth. The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of review of projects by such a board on a number of occasions. The nation board can decide on projects only on the basis of the findings of the state board,'' he said.

Sources in the ministry said NBWL members, Kishore Rithe, Prerna Singh Bindra, M K Ranjit Singh and N Madhusudan, expressed concern that Tamil Nadu has approached the national body without even constituting its local board.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-01/coimbatore/38188792_1_nbwl-sbwl-state-board

MoEF extends deadline for states to declare eco-sensitive zones around wildlife parks and sanctuaries

Kumar Sambhav S

It is the last opportunity for states, warns ministry official

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has extended the deadline for the states to declare eco-sensitive zones  around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries by three more months. The previous deadline expired on February 15.

Eco-sensitive zones are the ecologically important areas designated to be protected from industrial pollution and unregulated development under the Environment Protection Act of 1986. In 2002, MoEF had decided to declare an area of 10 km from the boundaries of protected areas as eco-sensitive zones to create a buffer around them. But many states opposed it, fearing it would hamper development. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 2005, MoEF, on the recommendation of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL), decided that states will declare eco-sensitive zones on site-specific, case-to-case basis, and that industrial activity in such zones would be regulated instead of being prohibited. Till the time these zones are not notified, all projects that require environmental clearance and fall within 10 km of the boundary of a protected area were to be placed before NBWL’s standing committee for approval.

The ministry has sent several reminders to states to propose eco-sensitive zones. It formulated guidelines to declare area-specific eco-sensitive zones in February 2011, but not many states forwarded proposals. India has 102 national parks and 515 wildlife sanctuaries, but till January this year, only seven eco-sensitive zones were notified around protected areas. In the meanwhile, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) that advises the Supreme Court on forest matters suggested that such zones should be limited to up to two kilometres from the boundary of the national parks. It said this would expedite the process of declaring the eco-sensitive zones. The ministry, however, did not buy this argument and advocated the existing mechanism of declaring site-specific safety zones around each protected area or restricting industrial activity within 10 km from its boundary in case such zones are not identified (see ‘Smaller eco zone irks ministry’).

Later, the ministry issued directions to the states on December 31, 2012, giving them the deadline of February 15 to send proposals for site-specific eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas. It said if the proposals were not sent for particular protected area by the deadline, the restrictions on industrial development will be imposed in an area of 10 km around that protected area. As the states panicked and started preparing the proposals, communities living around several protected areas in the country started protesting against the declaration of these zones. Reports from Maharashtra, Goa and Madhya Pradesh suggest people feared that notification of such zones would hamper their development.

While many states have formed committees of forest department and environmentalists to identify eco-sensitive zoones, it seems not many of them could comply with the deadline of February 15. “The states have requested for more time. Preparation of proposals has progressed well in several states but it is pending approval at the state governments' level. We have given them a last opportunity by extending the deadline for three more months,” said an official in the MoEF.

Source: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/moef-extends-deadline-states-declare-eco-sensitive-zones-around-wildlife-parks-and-sanctuari

MoEF sets deadline to declare eco-sensitive zones around national parks, sanctuaries

P. OPPILI & B. ARAVIND KUMAR

Last opportunity for States to give site-specific proposals

A decade after the National Board for Wildlife envisaged declaring areas within 10 km of the boundary of national parks and sanctuaries as eco-sensitive zones, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has given one last opportunity to all the States to submit site-specific proposals by February 15.

In a letter to the Chief Wildlife Wardens of all the States, Vivek Saxena, Deputy Inspector General, Wildlife, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has said the progress in declaring eco-sensitive zones was far from satisfactory despite the Ministry issuing guidelines in February 2011 itself.

“Only a few States have come forward with a proposal and that too for a few of the national parks and sanctuaries in their respective States. The Supreme Court is also considering the issue following a writ petition,” Mr. Saxena said in the letter, circulated to all States early in December 2012.

A letter from the MoEF Secretary has also been issued to Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories in this regard. In case, the State/Union Territory governments fail to submit the proposals within the deadline, the activities that have been prohibited as per the MoEF guidelines would stand prohibited within 10 km of the boundary of National Parks and Sanctuaries, the MoEF secretary cautioned.

As per the guidelines, commercial mining, setting up of industries causing pollution, commercial use of firewood, establishment of all hydroelectric projects, use or production of any hazardous substances, tourism activities like flying over the national park area by any aircraft or hot-air balloons and discharge of effluents and solid waste in natural water bodies or terrestrial area are prohibited.

Site-specific proposals necessary

The need for site-specific proposals has arisen as many of the existing protected areas have already undergone tremendous development in close vicinity to their boundaries with some like Guindy National Park lying in the urban set up, MoEF officials said.

Likewise, the eco-sensitive zones could extend beyond 10 km width in cases of sensitive corridors for connectivity of ecologically-important patches crucial for landscape linkage, officials emphasised.

When contacted, State Wildlife authorities said the work on demarcating the ecologically-sensitive zones around national parks and sanctuaries has already begun and is likely to be completed within a month.

In Tamil Nadu there are 10 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 14 bird sanctuaries, five national parks and a conservation reserve. These protected areas are spread over in an area of 5.46 lakh hectares across the State.

As per procedure, the Forest Department would first consider the requirement for an eco-sensitive zone to act as a shock absorber, suggest best methods for management and broad-based thematic activities to be included in the master plan of the region while demarcating the eco-sensitive zones.

Based on this, the Chief Wildlife Warden would have to group the activities under three heads — prohibitive, restricted with safeguards and permissible — that could be taken up.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/moef-sets-deadline-to-declare-ecosensitive-zones-around-national-parks-sanctuaries/article4305172.ece

Plans afoot to reintroduce Nilgiri Tahr in two ranges

P. OPPILI & B. ARAVIND KUMAR

Glenmorgan Mountains and Thirukurungudi ranges selected

A Nilgiri Tahr in one of the upper ridges of Mudaliaroothu in Grizzled Giant Squirrel sanctuary in Srivilliputhur. Photo: Special Arrangement

Nilgiri Tahr, the State animal of Tamil Nadu, is likely to be spotted again on the Glenmorgan Mountains in The Nilgiris and Thirukurungudi ranges in the Kalakad — Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), both original habitats of the Tahr until it went out of sight some years ago.

Acting on the suggestion of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBW), the Ministry of Environment and Forests has written to the State Forest Department for the reintroduction of the Nilgiri Tahr in these two ranges, MoEF officials said.

It was A.J.T. Johnsing, former Director of Wildlife Institute of India, who suggested that the Tahr be first introduced in Glenmorgan Mountain from Mukuruthy National Park, a known habitat of the Tahr in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, and thereafter plan reintroduction in KMTR.

Both Thirukurungudi and Glenmorgan were original habitats of Nilgiri Tahr, say wildlife officials in the State.

In KMTR, Thiruvannamalai Mottai, Nandoothi Moottai and Panchamthangi Moottai were the three original habitats. Till 1995, the animal was sighted in these places. However, there are no direct sightings in any of these areas now and there are indications of its presence in Thiruvannamalai Mottai and officials believe a small population of Tahr could be still living there.

These areas have rocky patches and grass lands above them. In Thiruvannamalai Mottai area, northern and eastern portions were full of rocky patches and the southwest corner is covered by Shola forests. Hence, the place was once the ideal habitat for Tahrs, said a senior officer. Glenmorgan near Mukurthi National Park in The Nilgiris was also originally a Tahr habitat.

Later the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board took over some areas to construct quarters for their staff. This, and the regular forest fires in the area must have driven the Tahr population away from the habitat, says a former wildlife warden.

Now the quarters have been abandoned but a critical habitat study has to be done before translocating a sizeable number of Tahr from Mukurthi National Park to Glenmorgan, says the forest officer.

“After that, a pilot project has to be implemented. Only after the results of pilot project are known, the Tahr population should be reintroduced here. Otherwise, Glenmorgan could become another Munnar [in Kerala], where the Tahr population has lost its wild instincts,” he cautions.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/plans-afoot-to-reintroduce-nilgiri-tahr-in-two-ranges/article4275814.ece