CAG environment Audit reports on...

[CAG ENVIRONMENT AUDIT REPORTS ON BIODIVERSITY]

1

Chapter V

Audit reports on Biodiversity .

Irregular retention of CAMPA funds in the Consolidated Fund of Gujarat

and resultant loss of interest

Failure to credit the amounts realised towards Net Present Value of forest land in fixed

deposits resulted in irregular retention of CAMPA funds of Rs 39.79 crore in the

Consolidated Fund of the Gujarat for periods ranging 30 months to 36 months and loss of

interest of Rs 3.03 crore.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in their order (October 2002) directed the Government of India

(GOI) to create a Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) in which all moneys received

from the user agencies towards all compensatory afforestation dues was to be deposited.

Since the matter of constitution of CAF was under deliberation, GOI directed (March 2004)

all the State Governments to keep all these moneys in fixed deposits (FDs) with any

nationalised bank in the name of the concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

Though GOI created (April 2004) Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management

and Planning Authority (CAMPA) under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act,

1986, it was not operational for a long time due to inability of GOI to take formal decision

to operationalise CAMPA. GOI, therefore, constituted (May 2006) an ad-hoc CAMPA and

directed State Governments to remit the moneys to the said CAMPA account.

Scrutiny of records (January 2006) of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and

information collected (August 2006) from them revealed that an amount of Rs 39.79 crore

realised (April 2004 to May 2006) by various Conservators of Forests (CFs) towards net

present value (NPV) of forest land were credited into the Consolidated Fund of the State

Government; this resulted in loss of interest of Rs 3.03 crore. Of the amount credited into

Consolidated Fund of the State, Government remitted (August 2006) Rs 36.87 crore to the

CAMPA account and balance amount of Rs 2.92 crore were not credited to the CAMPA

fund, but retained in the Consolidated Fund (March 2007).

Thus, failure to credit the amounts realised towards NPV of forest land in the FDs resulted

in irregular retention of CAMPA funds of Rs 39.79 crore with the Consolidated Fund of

the Government of Gujarat for periods ranging 30 months to 36 months (March 2007) and

resultant loss of interest of Rs 3.03 crore to the CAMPA Fund.

When reported, Government stated (May 2007) that prime concern of a welfare State is to

sagaciously utilise State funds for welfare activities. The reply of the Government is not


2

tenable as State Government is under obligation to carry out the orders of the Supreme

Court and GOI.

Performance audit of Implementation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 Forest Department, Madhya Pradesh

Highlights

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with the objective of maintaining a sustainable

balance between the development needs of the country and the conservation of natural

environment. As per the provisions of the Act, prior permission of the Government of India was

essential for diversion of forest lands for non forest purposes. While approving a proposal under the

Act, the Central Government stipulates mandatory compensatory conservation measures such as

compensatory afforestation, catchment area treatment etc., the cost of which was borne by the user

agencies. Performance Audit of the implementation of the Act in Madhya Pradesh revealed

significant cases of violation of the Act and absence of execution of compensatory conservation

measures in most of the cases where forest land had been diverted for non-forest purposes. As a

result, objectives of the Act largely remain unachieved in the State. Salient points noticed during

performance audit are as follows:

In 43 cases, 1515.997 hectare forest land was illegally diverted without proper permission of the

Government of India during the last 10 years. (Paragraph 3.2.5.1)

Compensatory Afforestation (CA) was not carried out in 70 per cent of the projects where forest land

was diverted for non-forest purposes during the last 10 years. Only 6 per cent of the funds received

from user agencies on account of CA were utilised during this period. (Paragraph 3.2.6.2)

53 out of 56 CA plantations raised on Jhabua „Land Bank‟ during the period 1997 to 2000 failed

due to non allotment of funds by the government for maintenance and protection of plants, resulting

in wasteful expenditure of Rs.2.04 crore. (Paragraph 3.2.6.4)

Department failed to recover Net Present Value amounting to Rs.350.99 crore from nine user

agencies in 18 projects. (Paragraph 3.2.7.1)

Catchment area treatment (CAT) was not carried out in six of the eight projects where it was

stipulated by the GOI as a condition for diversion of forest land. Funds of Rs.30.51 crore on

account of cost of catchment area treatment were not/short realised from the user agencies.Only 2.2

per cent of the total funds required for CAT had been spent. (Paragraph 3.2.8)


3

Introduction

The objective of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, referred to as Act hereafter, is to regulate

the indiscriminate diversion of forest land for non-forest uses and to maintain a logical

balance between the developmental needs of the country and the conservation of natural

heritage. Under the provisions of this Act, prior approval of the Government of India (GOI)

is essential for diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes. While approving a proposal,

the Central Government stipulates certain conditions to reduce the environmental damage on

account of forest loss. These conditions include mandatory carrying out of compensatory

afforestation (CA) and other project specific conservation measures such as catchment area

treatment in water resources projects, creation of safety zone, reclamation of opened

areas in mining projects and strip plantation in case of highway projects etc. The cost of

conservation measures is borne by the user agency. Further, as per directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the GOI has also stipulated for realization of net present value of the

diverted forest land from the user agencies. The proposals for diversion of forest land for non-

forest use are processed by the Forest Department. It is the responsibility of the Forest

Department to ensure that no forest land is diverted without the permission of the GOI and

conditions of the GOI and State Government, if any, for diversion of the forest land are

complied to.

Organisational set up

The Department of Forests is headed by the Principal Secretary (Forests) at the Government

level. Chief Conservator of Forests (Land Management) in the office of the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests (PCCF) has been designated as the Nodal Officer, who deals with the

cases of diversion of forest land for non-forest use in the State. He is assisted by

Conservators of Forests and 60 Divisional Forest Officers (Territorial/General) at the field

level.

Audit objectives

Objectives of the performance audit were to assess whether: provisions of the Act were

followed by the State Government in case of diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose;

conditions imposed by the GOI and the State Government for diversion of forest land

were adhered to; mandatory conservation measures such as compensatory afforestation,

catchment area treatment etc. were carried out effectively and efficiently; financial

management was effective; and system of monitoring and evaluation was in place and

effective.

Audit scope and criteria

The scope of performance audit included test check of records in the Nodal office and 17

forest divisions . Selection of divisions was done after discussion with the State

Government during Entry Conference (April, 2007). Divisions were selected to represent all

the major geographical areas of the State and various types of projects such as irrigation,


4

mining, power, roads etc. for which forest land were diverted. Records pertaining to the

period from 1997-98 to 2006-07 were examined in detail. The performance audit was

conducted by this office during April to July, 2007. Exit conference was held in November

2007 and comments of State Government have been incorporated accordingly.

Performance of the forest department was evaluated against the provisions of the Act, rules

and guidelines framed by the Central Government under the Act, conditions stipulated by

the Central and the State Government while granting approval for diversion of forest land

and the instructions issued by the forest department to territorial forest divisions.

Audit findings

3.2.5 Cases of violations of the Act

3.2.5.1 Utilization of forest land for non-forest purposes without obtaining prior approval from

the Central Government

The Act stipulates that no foest land should be utilized for non-forest purpose without prior

approval of the Government of India Scrutiny of the records of eight forest divisions revealed

illegal diversion of 1507.391 hectare forest land in 41 cases by eleven user agencies.

The Act stipulates that no foest land should be utilized for non-forest purpose without prior

approval from the Government of India was not obtained in th;ese cases. Scrutingy of

records in Sehore and Satna territorial divison releaved illegal diversion of 8.606 hectare

forest land by two users agencies. Approved by the Central Government in excess of the area

As per the provisions of the Act, cases of violation of the Act were required to be reported by

the State Government to the Central Government so that penal action under section 3-A and

3-B of the Act could be initiated. It was noticed during audit that neither 43 cases of violation

of the Act were brought to the notice of the Central Government nor any penal action was

initiated in any of the cases.

The State Government stated that the cases were under scrutiny and would be reported to

the Government of India after establishing violation of the Act. However, the fact remains

that not a single case was reported to the Government of India despite lapse of one year to

eight years since violation of the Act. Further, section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

bars Courts to take cognizance of an offence after lapse of the period of limitation. Period of

limitation is one year for offences under the Act, as the offence is punishable with

imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

3.2.6 Compensatory Afforestation: Non carrying out and failure of compensatory afforestation

plantations and other issues

In order to mitigate the adverse effects of diversion of green forest lands the Central

Government, while granting approval under the Act, stipulated to carry out the

compensatory afforestation (CA) over equivalent area of non-forest land or double the


5

degraded forest land. The cost of such CA was to be borne by the user agency.

3.2.6.1 Scrutiny of records in the Nodal office revealed the following status of compensatory

afforestation since the implementation of the Act in 1980.

Total

number of

projects since

1980

Total forest

land diverted

since 1980 (in

hectare)

Area on

which

CA was

stipulate

d (in

hectare)

Number

of

projects

where

CA has

not

been

done at

all

Stipulated

area

where

CA has

not

been

done at

all (in

hectare

)

Funds

made

available

by the

user

agencies

(Rupees

in crore)

Funds

utilized for

CA till

June,

2006

(Rupees

in crore)

734 51,018 73,213 289 13,441 109.77 27.17

75 per cent of the CA funds remained unutilized.

Only 25 per cent funds had been utilized for compensatory afforestation out of Rs.109.77

crore made available by user agencies since implementation of the Act in 1980. Also, CA

has not been carried out at all in 289 projects (39 per cent) and 13,441 hectare (18 per cent) of

the stipulated land. In other words, there has been no compensatory conservation effort

against the diversion of 9,853 hectare of forest land to 289 projects for non-forest use.

3.2.6.2 A detailed scrutiny of the records of 17 forest territorial divisions was done by audit

where forest land was diverted for non-forest use during the last ten years i.e. 1997-98 to

2006-07. The results are as below :

The above table shows that only Rs.2.31 crore (six per cent) were utilized for CA out of

Rs.38.37 crore made available by user agencies during the last ten years. Also, CA has not

been carried out at all in 67 cases (70 per cent) and 5340.197 hectare (76 per cent) of the

stipulated land.


6

The DFOs stated that CA could not be carried out due to non-allotment of funds by the

Government in 64 cases and non-transfer of non-forest land by the user agency in one case.

It was, however, noticed during audit that the divisions also did not pursue for allotment of

funds from the Government. In the remaining two cases, it was noticed that CA was not

carried out despite availability of funds with the divisions.

Further, 29 compensatory afforestations that were carried out during the review period

were evaluated between August 2004 and April 2007 by the forest divisions . These

plantations had failed as the survival ratio of plants ranged from nil to 10 per cent. Thus

Rs.15.68 lakh spent on these plantations were rendered wasteful. Main reasons for failure of

these plantations were improper protection and maintenance of plants, and selection of

unsuitable land for plantation by the forest divisions. Responsibility for failure of these

plantations was not fixed in any of these cases by the Forest Department.

3.2.6.3 Compensatory afforestations are also evaluated by the regional office of Chief

Conservator of Forests (Central), Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOI, Bhopal.

Scrutiny of 67 inspection reports made available to audit revealed that CA was not carried

out in 34 cases (51 per cent) due to non-allotment of funds by the Government in 25

cases, non-depositing of funds by user agencies in five cases, non-availability of non-

forest land in two cases and non-suitability of land for CA in the remaining two cases

Out of the 33 cases where CA was carried out, had failed resulting in wasteful

expenditure of Rs.8.82 lakh. In seven of these failed plantations raised in the year 2000

survival rate of plants was zero. Reason for failure was non-allotment of funds by the

Government for maintenance of plants.

3.2.6.4 Scrutiny of records of Jhabua territorial division revealed (May 2007) that 56

plantations were raised in 2608.018 hectare of Land Bank during the period from 1997 to

2000 at a cost of Rs.2.23 crore. DFO, Jhabua was requested for evaluation of these

plantations in March 2007. Assessment of these plantations by the forest department

personnel between March and May 2007 revealed low survival of plants (zero to 20 per

cent) in 53 plantations resulting in wasteful expenditure of Rs.2.04 crore.

The DFO Jhabua stated that the main reason for failure of these plantations was non-

allotment of funds for maintenance and protection of plants by the State Government. It

was, however, noticed during audit that the division also did not pursue for allotment of

funds from the Government. The Forest Department failed to monitor these plantations and

accountability/ responsibility for failure of these plantations was not fixed in any of these

cases which reflected the indifferent attitude of the department.

In six similar cases in Harda Division (May 2005), compensatory afforestation plantations

had failed. These plantations were raised by Narmada Valley Development Authority

(NVDA) during 1997-98 and were assessed in the year 2002. As the survival ratio of plants

was six to 17 per cent, the expenditure of Rs.40.89 lakh proved wasteful.

The Government while accepting the audit observation assured that responsibility would be


7

fixed for failure of plantations.

3.2.6.5 Non/short realization of charges for compensatory afforestation

The departmental instructions (February 2004) for preparation of project report for

compensatory afforestation, prescribe that provision for monitoring and evaluation charges

should be made at the rate of 20 per cent per hectare of the estimated cost of plantation.

Test check of the records relating to diversion of forest land for non-forest use in 12 forest

divisions revealed that requisite provision for monitoring and evaluation charges at the

prescribed rate was not made in 34 compensatory afforestation project reports. This resulted

in non/short-realization of Rs.3.90 crore from 12 user agencies .

The DFOs stated that action would be taken after obtaining guidance from the higher

authorities. Reply of the DFOs was not tenable in view of clear departmental instructions

(February 2004).

Non-forest land not transferred to the forest department for carrying out CA

Similarly, requisite provision for works relating to entry point activities and human resource

development at the rate of and three per cent, respectively, was not made in 46 project

reports prepared by forest division despite departmentsl instructions for the same in

February 2002. This resulted in short/nonrelaization of Rs.3.17 crore.

The Government while accepting the audit observation assured that the Nodal Officer

would issue instructions to the forest divisions for recovery of the above mentioned charges

from the user agencies.

3.2.6.6. Non-forest land not transferred for CA and not notified as Reserve/ Protected Forest

As per guidelines issued under the Act by the GOI, equivalent non-forest land (NFL)

identified for the purpose of CA was to be transferred to the ownership of the State Forest

Department and declared as reserved/protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 so

that the plantation raised could be maintained permanently. The transfer of NFL was to be

made prior to the commencement of the project scrutiny of the records of 13 forests

divisions revealed the following status of transfer and subsequent noticiation of the non-

forest land that was to be made available for CA since the implementation of the Act.


8

About 62 per cent of the total NFL identified for carrying out CA had not been transferred

by the user agencies despite diversion of forest land for non0-forest use. In eight projects

where NFL of 2, 994 hectare had not been transferred by user agencies, forest land was

diverted during the period 1982 to 1996. Forest Department failed to take any effective steps

to obtain non-forest land from the user agencies. Also, 61 per cent of the NFL transferred to

the forest department by user agencies had not been declared Reserve/ Protected forest by the

forest department.

The DFOs stated that efforts were being made to obtain and notify the non-forest land. The

reply is not tenable in view of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests

and the delay of 11 to 24 years in transfer of land and one to 17 years in getting the

transferred land notified as reserve/ protected forest was not justified. The State

Government stated that the cases would be examined to assess possibility of carrying out CA

on double the degraded forest land instead of equivalent non-forest land in such cases, where

NFL had not been transferred to forest department for many years.

3.2.6.7 Deviation in working circle for compensatory afforestation

Departmental instructions (February 2002) require that compensatory afforestation should be

done only for Rehabilitation of Degraded Forest (RDF), Rehabilitation of Degraded

Bamboo Forest (RDBF) and Plantation working circles as the density of forests in these

working circles is less than 0.4. If forest divisions do not have any of these working circles,

CA should be carried out in another forest division having these working circles.

Scrutiny of records of Indore and Badwah forest division revealed (April 2007) that five

plantations were carried out over 71.994 hectare at a cost of Rs.12.30 lakh in

Improvement Working Circle (IWC) . The DFO Indore stated that CA was done in IWC

due to non-availability of RDF working circle in the division. DFO, Badwah and Shivpuri

stated that the proposed area for CA was equivalent to RDF areas. The reply is not tenable in

view of departmental instructions.

3.2.6.8 CA project of Omkareshwar project not revised

As per GOI guidelines and departmental instructions (December 2001 and February 2002),

project report for compensatory afforestation should be site-specific.

Scrutiny of the records of Nodal Office revealed (July 2007) that the GOI granted in-

principle/formal approval (October 1993/August 2004) for diversion of 5,829.85 ha forest

land to Omkareshwar Project subject to condition of carrying out of CA over 11,660 ha

degraded forest land. The action plan for CA was prepared in the year 1991 at a cost of

Rs.21.98 crore (Rs.18,851 per ha.) whereas the work of CA was started by Narmada Valley

Development Authority (NVDA) in the year 2002-03 (in Khandwa and Badwah). It was

noticed during audit that site-specific project was not prepared before carrying out CA

taking into account the cost escalation during the last 12 years.


9

Further, as per scrutiny of 23 project reports of Badwah and Khandwa prepared during 2002-

04, the average cost of CA comes out to Rs.1.18 lakh per ha. Accordingly, CA project of

Omkareshwar needs revision by taking into account the cost escalation.

3.2.7 Non/short realisation of Net Present Value and Pratyasha Mulya

3.2.7.1 Non/short-realization of Net Present Value (NPV) of diverted forest land

As per instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests

(September 203), NPV of the diverted forest land shall be charged from the user agency in

all those projects which were granted in principle approval after 30 October 2002. The

underlying principle for recovery of NPV is that the plantations raised under the CA scheme

can never adequately compensate for the loss of natural forests as the plantations require

more time to mature and even then these plantations are poor substitute to natural forests.

Further in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court (September, 2006), the

Ministry instructed (October 2006) that NPV should be charged in those cases also where

formal approval was granted after 30 October 2002 irrespective of the date of in-principle

approval by the GOI.

Scrutiny of records of nine forest divisions revealed that NPV amounting to Rs.350.99 crore

was not short in 18 projects recovered from nine users/user agencies.

The Government stated that the demand for recovery of Rs.350.99 crore had been raised

from the user agencies at the instance of audit. An amount of Rs.11.21 lakh was recovered by

DFO Dewas at the instance of audit.

3.2.7.2 Non-realization of "Pratyasha Mulya"

The Government of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP), Forest Department prescribed (April 2000)

realization of "pratyasha mulya" from user agencies in lieu of diversion of forest land for non-

forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The rates were prescribed between

Rs.5.80 lakh and Rs.9.20 lakh per hectare depending on site quality and density of the

diverted forest land.

Test check of records relating to diversion of forest land for non-forest use in eight

forests divisions revealed that 1330.539 hectare of forest land was diverted to four

user agencies for non-forest use between July 2000 and September 2002 but "Pratyasha

mulya" of Rs. 78.14 crore was not realized from the user agencies resulting in loss of

revenue to the Government Government replied that action for recovery of Pratyasha

Mulya would be taken in cases where forest land was handed over to the user agencies

between April 2000 and October 2002.

3.2.8 Catchment Area treatment

Catchment area treatment is one of the important conditions imposed by Government of

India, while granting permission under the Act for diversion of forest land for medium and


10

major irrigation projects and hydro-electric projects of 10 MW and above capacity. It

involves treatment of erosion prone areas in the catchment area of a water resources

project through engineering and biological works and is essential for preventing siltation of

reservoirs and maintaining environmental balances preventing siltation of reservoirs and

maintaining environmental balances.

Scrutiny of records of Vidisha, Shivpuri, Umaria, Satna, Indore and North Seoni forest

divisions revealed the following status of catchment area treatment in water resources

projects for which forest land had been diverted under the Act. s

l

.

N

o

Name of

the

division

Name of

the project

Diverted

forest

land area

(ha.)

Final

sanction

by GOI

Amount

to be

deposite

d by user

agency

(Rupees

in lakh)

Amount

deposite

d by

user

agency

(Rupees

in lakh)

Expenditure

incurred till

31

March 2007

1

.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6

.

7

.

8

1. Vidisha Sanjay Sagar

(Wah)

304 31

October

2005

816.20 Nil Nil

2. Umaria Van Sagar

Project

293 10 July

1989

3.70 Nil Nil

3. Shivpuri Madhar Tank 180 15

Septemb

er

1993

18.00 Nil Nil

4. Shivpuri Mohini Sagar

Dam Phase-II

3106 05

Decemb

er

2000

5070.19 2922.00 Nil

5. North

Seoni

Upper Van

Ganga

Irrigation

Project

923 14 June

2002

-24 Nil Nil

6. Indore Katiajhiria

Tank

11 31

August

2002

2.50 2.50 Nil

7. Satna Watershed

under Van

Sagar

Project

2550 10 July

1989

217.00 151.58 109.66

8. Vidisha Rajeev Sagar

(Maksudanga

rh)

129 20 April

1993

61.52 61.52 28.20

Total 8 7496 6189.11 3137.60 137.86 (2.2%)

Audit observed that catchment area treatment was not carried out at all in six of the eight

projects inspite of the GOI's condition for diversion of forest land. Reasons for non-

carrying out catchment area treatment in these six projects were non-recovery of funds from

the user agencies (four projects) and failure to spend the funds recovered from the user

agencies (two projects) by the State Government.

As a result, only 2.2 per cent of the total funds required for catchment area treatment were

spent while forest land of 7,496 hectare has been transferred for non-forest use two to 18


11

years ago.

The DFO Vidisha and Satna stated that necessary action was being taken to collect the

money and complete the work. The State Government replied that the cases of non-

carrying out of catchment area treatment would be examined in detail and reasons would

be communicated to audit.

Status of Compliance on other conditions

3.2.9.1 Safety zones not created around the mining area

As per guidelines issued by the GOI (October 1992) under the Act, safety zones were to be

created around the forest areas diverted for mining operations. Further, project authorities

were required to deposit funds with the forest department for the protection and

regeneration of such safety zone areas and bear the cost of afforestation over one and half

times the safety zone area in degraded forest elsewhere.

Scrutiny of the records of Jhabua, Vidisha and North Betul divisions revealed that safety

zones were not created in seven mining projects involving diversion of 504.739 hectare of

forest land. In a case of Jhabua Division, provision for Rs.14.97 lakh was made for safety

zone, but funds were not demanded from the user agency Madhya Pradesh State Mining

Corporation Ltd., Meghnagar. In six mining cases of Vidisha and North Betul, no

provision for safety zone was made by the Forest Department, in contravention of the

guidelines, while sending proposals to the Central Government.

The DFO Jhabua stated that demand of Rs.14.97 lakh would be raised from Madhya

Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd., Meghnagar. The Government stated that

instructions would be issued to the divisions to ensure provision of safety zones are made as

per the GOI guidelines.

3.2.9.2 Non-reclamation of mining area

According to the guidelines issued under the Act, the diverted forest land opened for

mining was to be systematically reclaimed according to a phased reclamation plan and the

cost of reclamation was to be borne by the user agency.

Scrutiny of records of Jhabua, Vidisha and Satna forest divisions revealed that the GOI

stipulated reclamation of opened mining areas while granting approval for diversion of

65.671 hectare of forest land to four user agencies for six mining projects. In one case of

Jhabua Division, provision for Rs.66.43 lakh was made for reclamation, but funds were not

demanded from the user agency viz. State Mining Corporation. Forest land of 37.7 hectare

was diverted in this case in February, 2007. In two cases of Vidisha Division, reclamation

was not initiated despite expiry of the lease period in July, 2003 and January, 2006. In

remaining three cases of Satna Division, partial reclamation was done by the user agency viz.


12

Maihar Cement Company after expiry of the lease period between February 2001 and April,

2005.

The DFO's Jhabua and Vidisha stated that the necessary action would be taken. The State

Government stated that a uniform policy for collection of charges for reclamation of opened

mined areas would be devised.

3.2.9.3 Environment clearance not obtained

Scrutiny of records of four division revealed that the GOI granted permission for diversion

of 1440.597 hectare forest land in six projects with the condition that environment clearance

under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 be obtained by the user agencies. It was

noticed during audit that the user agencies were permitted by the Forest Department to use

the forest land for non-forest purposes without obtaining environment clearance. The

Government assured to take action for obtaining environment clearance in these cases.

Monitoring and Evaluation

3.2.11.1 Monitoring of implementation of conditions

According to departmental instructions (December 2001), CA plantations should be

monitored and evaluated at the level of Conservator of Forests twice in a year, at

headquarters level once in a year and by an outside agency after three years. Further, GOI

guidelines require that the nodal officer should monitor the implementation of the

conditions of compensatory afforestation and the survival ratio of the seedlings planted.

Scrutiny of records of 10 forest division revealed that 27 out of the 29 CA plantations were

not monitored and evaluated at all by the nodal officer, the Conservators of Forests or an

outside agency or any of their representatives.

The nodal officer stated that monitoring and evaluation could not be done due to shortage of

staff. Though the Conservators of Forests were directed to constitute monitoring committees

for CA plantations in April, 2005, it was, however, noticed in audit that monitoring of CA

plantations was not done by such committees. Regarding evaluation by an outside agency,

the nodal officer requested (June, 2007) the State Forest Research Institute (SFRI), Jabalpur

and Tropical Forest Research Institute (TFRI), Jabalpur consequent to audit. As per

guidelines issued by the Central Government (October 1992), the nodal officer should

submit quarterly progress report regarding implementation of the stipulations laid down by it.

Scrutiny of records of CCF (LM) revealed (July

2007) that no such quarterly progress report was found to be sent to Government of India

(GOI) up to March 2007. The nodal office did not have a comprehensive database of cases

alongwith the conditions stipulated by the GOI for effective monitoring.

Conclusion

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with the objective of maintaining a sustainable


13

balance between the developmental needs of the country and the conservation of natural

environment. This objective largely remains un-achieved in the State of Madhya Pradesh

due to poor implementation of compensatory conservation measures. Non-carrying out of

conservation measures in large number of cases; non-utilization of funds received from user

agencies; and failure of significant number of compensatory plantations reflect that the State

Government was unable to mitigate the adverse effects of degradation of the environment

resulting from diversion of green forests for non-forest purposes. Further, there were

significant cases of violation of the Act where neither any penal action was initiated by the

Government nor any compensatory conservation measures was carried out after getting

these cases regularized from the Central Government.

Recommendations

Funds received from user agencies which are required to be remitted to CAMPA should

be identified and made available to CAMPA.

Compensatory afforestation and catchment area treatment projects that have not been carried

out for many years due to various reasons should be implemented as per the guidelines and

costs.

Proper monitoring and timely disposal of cases should be ensured at the nodal office.

Also, a comprehensive computerized database of the cases may be maintained for better

monitoring.

User agencies such as State Water Resources, Mineral Resources, and Public Works

departments etc. may be sensitized by organizing workshops on the provisions of the Act.

Workshops for field level officers of the Forest Department may also be organized on latest

instructions/guidelines of the Central Government under the Act.

Performance audit of Afforestation Programme, Orissa

4.5 Afforestation programme

4.5.1 Delayed release of funds

As per the schedule of operation for plantations under Afforestation programme, major

activities involved in plantation were required to be completed before onset of monsoon

(July) and therefore the timely release of the funds to the forest divisions was to be

ensured. During 2001-06, the release of funds to seven was only Rs out of 12 test

checked forest divisions by the end of July14.50 crore (56 per cent) against Rs 25.75 crore

required for the major activities. The balance funds were released during the fag end of

the financial years (February). The Divisional Forest Officers stated (June 2006) that such

delayed release of funds affected the soil conservation measures and maintenance

operations of the existing plantations. Besides, peoples' participation through entry point

activities could not be ensured. This apart, delay in release of funds led to surrender of Rs

64.82 lakh by two divisions in Balangir and one division in Sonepur district during 2001-

05.

4.5.3 Shortfall in achievement under NTFP plantation

As per Annual Action plans, the plantation under „Non Timber Forest Produce‟ (NTFP) was to be

undertaken so as to increase the forest products and to ensure generation of employment

on a sustainable basis. During the years 2002-06, as against the target of 10000 hectares,

only 6175 hectares of NTFP plantations were undertaken resulting in shortfall of 3825

hectares (38 per cent).

4.5.4 Non-supply of fuel-efficient chullahs

Annual Action plans sought to promote use of fuel-efficient chullahs among the rural

households to reduce the demand on forest for firewood. Accordingly, the PCCF Orissa

(January 1999) instructed all forest divisions to distribute such chullahs to all the families

of the fringe villages (8203) out of the funds under entry point activities. Scrutiny of

records of 12 forest divisions showed that only one division (Khariar) supplied fuel-

efficient chullahs to 1703 (60 per cent) families out of the total 2850 families in Nuapara

district while the remaining 11 divisions did not supply fuel-efficient chullah at all. Thus,

the demand on forest for firewood could not be stemmed.

4..5.5 Deviation from scheme guidelines and resultant loss

The Scehem of IAEP, AOFFP and NTFP provided taking up plantation on watershed

catchment area to prevent high mortality in drought-like situation. Deviating from the

scheme guidelines two divisions (Sambalpur South and Bolangir East) took up plantation

outside the watershed catchment areas during 1999-2003 by incurring expenditure of Rs

56.40 lakh. The plantations did not, however, survive due to drought condition.

4.5.6 Joint Forest Management system

For ensuring better management of forest, the Government constituted Vana

Smarakshana Samitees (VSS) in July 1993 comprising officials from Forest &

Environment Department and representatives from households living in adjoining forest

area for joint forest management (JFM) in all the 8203 villages. The work of VSS included

protection of forests against grazing, fire, illicit felling, theft and encroachment of forest

land through patrolling. A review of the functioning of the VSS during 2001-06 disclosed

the following:

Against 8203 number of VSS scheduled to be formed; only 3160 were formed as of

March 2006. Of these only one VSS had been registered under the Societies Registration

Act. Thus, the VSS, barring one which was registered, did not have legal status for

enforceability.

Out of plantations raised in 73615 hectares by 12 Forest Divisions in the KBK

districts during 2001-06, the survival of plantations in 11558 hectares was partially

(below 50 per cent) successful as of March 2006.

Plantations raised over 1160 hectare during 2001-06 under three divisions were damaged

by drought conditions (820 hectare), destroyed by the cattle (140 hectare) and internal

conflicts of VSSs (200 hectare). Evaluation (January 2005) by Conservator of Forest,

Bhawanipatna over 38 sites indicated that growth of plantation over 210 hectare was poor

and the survival was only 10 per cent due to non-involvement of the VSS. 1.34 crore were

paid to them as wages. In fact, this fund was for creation and maintenance of assets like

renovation of ponds, creation of water bodies etc. Besides, by engaging them for security

and treating as paid labourers, the spirit of beneficiary ownership could not be developed.

4.6 Monitoring

The guidelines of CSP schemes viz. SGRY and SGSY clearly provided that the officers

from State level were required to visit the districts and the district level officers in turn

should visit the Blocks. Field level monitoring were to be made for ascertaining the

progress of implementation of the programmes, deviations etc., through regular reporting

from the Block level to the State level through the district level officials. It was, however,

noticed that the monitoring was inadequate.

Reports of progress of work, deviations and decisions for corrective action etc. were not

available on record. Besides, a sum of Rs. 6.15 lakh was paid to the Orissa Remote

Sensing Application Centre. (ORSAC) for concurrent and independent evaluation of

project performance, which too did not materialise due to non-supply of required maps by

the Forest Divisions to the ORSAC.

4.7 Abstract of Audit findings

The SGRY scheme implemented in the KBK districts failed to generate targeted

number of employment days under RLTAP. The afforestation programme aimed

at conservation and extension of forests coupled with employment also showed a dismal

performance.

4.8 Impact assessment

Poverty alleviation through rural employment programmes was given high priority under

RLTAP to address unemployment and check migration of labour in the region. However,

the data maintained by the Labour and Employment Department indicated that

migration of labourers to other States was on the increasing trend ranging from 8,845 in

2001-02 to 14,787 in 2005-06. These numbers however did not include migration through

unregistered contractors. From the available information it was reasonable to conclude

that efforts for generation of employment did not achieve satisfactory results. Graduation

of SHGs into potential micro enterprises did not show impressive result as only a few of

them entered into economic activities and very few were earning the desired monthly

income. The beneficiaries did not have a sense of community ownership on the

community assets created. Improvement in rainfall and increase in forest cover in the

KBK districts were among major performance indicators for determination of success of

afforestation programme. As per the rainfall reports maintained by the Special Relief

Commissioner (SRC), the average annual rainfall in the region was 1323 mm during

1993-97 whereas the same averaged

1319 mm during 1998-2006 indicating there was marginal reduction instead of increase in

precipitation. The survey by the XIMB revealed that while 25 per cent of the beneficiaries

felt that the RLTAP had little impact on alleviation of their poverty, another 25 per cent felt

the impact to be of a fair level. The remaining 50 per cent rated the impact as satisfactory.

Some benefit, however, accrued to them in the form of employment generated by the

schemes.

4.9 Recommendations

Requirement of fire wood and fodder should be assessed and plantation carried out under Non

Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) schemes to provide sustained employment and to check illicit

felling of trees.

All India report on Conservation & Protection of Tiger in Tiger Reserves in India (2006)

The Government of India launched Project Tiger, a centrally sponsored scheme, in

April 1973 to protect tigers and to ensure a viable population of tigers in India. The

Management Plans were to form the bases for the implementation of the project.

These were not approved by the State Governments and the Central Government

in many cases. The Annual Plans of Operation also did not always have correlation

with the management plans. The activities on the ground were very often dictated by

the immediate needs of the project and the funds released by the Government.

The State Governments did not, in many cases, release their share of funds. Cases

of diversion of central funds for other purposes were also noticed during audit.The

norms decided in 1972 to create Tiger Reserves stipulated an average area of 1500

sqkms. The actual areas of the Tiger Reserves were mostly less than the prescribed area.

15 out of the 28 Tiger Reserves created had area less than half the prescribed area

which was definitely not conducive for conservation, protection and sustenance of a

viable tiger population. Besides, the boundaries of many of the Tiger Reserves had not

been demarcated nor the areas falling within the Tiger Reserves notified legally.

The Project Tiger Directorate did not have the wherewithal to undertake any monitoring

of the implementation of the project. It had only seven personnel including non-

ministerial staff and could not even process the periodical reports and returns

received from the Tiger Reserves or to critically examine the Management Plans and

issue appropriate directions. Implementation of the project was thus entirely in the

hands of the State Governments whose priorities did not always coincide with those

of the Project Tiger Directorate.

Relocation of the people living within the Tiger Reserves as well as removal and

prevention of encroachment is essential to ease the biotic pressure on the tiger

population. Efforts in this direction did not succeed primarily because of lack of

resources. Against the requirement of around Rs.11000 crore to relocate 64951

families living within the Tiger Reserves, the allocation in the Tenth Five Year Plan was

a meager Rs.10.50 crore. Even this money was not properly utilized by the State

Governments.

The implementation of the project was severely hampered by understaffing at the level of

Tiger Reserves. The personnel actually employed were also found to be overaged,

undertrained and underequipped in many cases. The intelligence and

communication network at the Reserves level was also weak.

Many tiger reserves neither prepared the tourist management plans nor assessed

the tourist carrying capacity of the reserves despite guidelines issued by the Project Tiger

Directorate. The conflict between promotion of tourism and earning of revenue on the

one hand and ecological protection of the tiger habitat on the other was thus not

resolved.

Various activities under the village eco-development component of the India Eco-

Development Project were not carried out efficiently and avoidable extra expenditure of

Rs.5.17 crore was noticed in audit.

The census of tigers was generally carried by counting pugmarks which is not considered

a fool-proof methodology. The census was not conducted annually in most of the Tiger

Reserves and it was also not uptodate.

In the 15 Tiger Reserves created up to 1984, the total number of tigers increased

from 1121 in 1984 to 1141 in 2001-02, a rate of increase which highlights the

ineffectiveness of the measures taken under the Project Tiger to attain a viable tiger

population. During the same period, the overall tiger population in the country

declined from 3623 to 2906.

Highlights

There were wide gaps between the financial projections made in the Management Plans and

the Annual Plans of Operations and the actual release of funds by the Project Tiger

Directorate and the State Government. (Para 4.3)

As per the decision of the Special Task Force in 1972, Tiger Reserves should consist of a

sizeable core area and a buffer zone around the core. These requirements were not met in many

Tiger Reserves. Most of the Tiger Reserves do not have a designated, functional buffer zone,

which is essential for redressing the park-people interface problems and to elicit local

public support for conservation. (Para 6.1, 6.1.1)

Out of the six new Tiger Reserves approved for creation by the Government in the IX

Plan, only four were created. (Para 6.1.3)

Since tiger population breeds well and grows rapidly in habitats that are without disturbance,

64,951 families including 17,650 families living in the core areas were to be relocated

outside the Tiger Reserves. Relocation of 64,951 families needs Rs 11,041 crore against

which only Rs 10.50 crore was provided in the X Plan. (Para 6.2.1)

Though directives regarding computation of visitor carrying capacity had been issued,

many Tiger Reserves have unregulated tourism. Very little effort has gone in for recycling

the tourism receipts to the stakeholder host communities. (Para 6.5.2, 6.5.3)

Though the need for a network of corridors connecting the Tiger Reserves and the

adjacent forest areas, to enable tigers to migrate through the corridors was recognized in

1985, there is slow progress in the efforts for creation of the corridors. (Para 7.5)

Irregularities involving Rs 12.06 crore were noticed under the village eco-development

component in Pench, Buxa, Gir and Nagarhole. (Para 7.6.2.1, 7.6.2.2)

Funds of Rs 13.90 crore accumulated under Village Development Fund in Buxa,

Ranthambore, Nagarhole and Periyar were not utilized for post project sustainability. Besides

there was short realization of Village Development Fund of Rs 89 lakh at Nagarhole (Para

7.6.2.4)

Even after more than three decades of Project Tiger, the research activities in various

Tiger Reserves were adversely impacted by lack of requisite laboratories or research officers.

(Para 7.7)

Protection measures in the Tiger Reserves were weak due to absence of measures to combat

poaching, poor communication network, inadequate provision of arms and ammunition,

deficiencies in creation of strike force, poor intelligence gathering, inadequate patrolling

camps and tardy progress in concluding the cases of wildlife crimes. As a result, poaching of

tigers continued and touched an annual level of 22 over a period of six years. (Para 8,8.1.1 to

8.1.5 and 8.3.1)

Most of the reserves suffer from deployment of aged field staff, which has adversely affected the

protection efforts. (Para 8.3.3.2)

MoEF had not taken any action to strengthen the organizational structure of the Project

Tiger Directorate in as much as against 38 posts identified in the initial project report in

1972, it was functioning with only seven personnel against the sanctioned strength of 13 posts

as of May 2006. (Para 8.4)

The watch over majority of exit/ entry points at airports, seaports, land ports and check posts

was inadequate to monitor the illegal passage of wildlife and wildlife products through these

points. (Para 8.5.3.3)

The Steering Committee, the Apex body which reviews the progress of the Project Tiger met

only four times during 1997-2006, as against 18 meetings required to be held at an interval of

six months. (Para 9.1.1)

The system of watching the receipt of returns regarding tiger estimation from the reserves

and the compilation of figures at the Project Directorate was poor. (Para 9.2.1.2)

The concurrent monitoring mechanism for the assessment of the effectiveness of the

management plan and its various components at the various Tiger Reserves by the Project

Directorate was completely derailed due to non-receipt of the monthly

progress/summary reports and the quarterly, half yearly and annual reports from most of the

Tiger Reserves. (Para 9.3)

1. Introduction

Recognising the need to protect tigers, Government initiated several measures aimed at

conservation and protection of the species. Significant among them were Project Tiger, a

centrally sponsored scheme launched in April 1973 and the India Eco-development

Project (October 1997-June 2004) funded by external agencies. Besides, efforts were

made to prevent illegal wildlife trade to ensure a viable population of tiger in India. The

main activities of Project Tiger include wildlife management, protection measures, and

specific eco- development activities. Twenty eight Tiger Reserves were created in 17 states

between 1973-74 and 1999-2000. The Project Tiger Directorate (PTD) in the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (MoEF) at New Delhi is responsible for providing technical

guidance, budgetary support, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of Project Tiger

while the management and implementation of the Project rests with the State Governments

concerned. The India Eco- development Project (IEDP) was a pilot project initiated with the

assistance of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility to conserve biodiversity

through eco-development. The project addressed both the impact of the local population on

the Protected Areas and the impact of the Protected Areas on the local population and

envisaged to improve the capacity of the Protected Area management to effectively

conserve biodiversity and support collaboration between the States and the

local communities in and around ecologically vulnerable areas. The project was

implemented at five Tiger Reserves and two national parks. In order to curb illegal trade

in wildlife, MoEF created four regional wildlife offices at Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and

Mumbai for preservation of wildlife. These regional offices are headed by Regional

Deputy Directors (RDDs) and are under the direct administrative control of the Wildlife

Division of MoEF.

2. Audit objectives

The performance audit of conservation and protection of tigers in Tiger Reserves seeks

to assess whether -

(i) the efforts made by the government in conservation and protection of tigers has ensured a

viable population of tigers in India;

(ii) the planning for conservation and protection was adequate and the resources were

allocated as per the identified needs and approved prioritisation of various activities of the

Tiger Reserves;

(iii) the targets set in the plan documents were achieved through judicious utilisation of

resources;

(iv) the efforts made to reduce the biotic disturbance from the tiger habitats caused by

human settlements and other land uses were effective; and

(v) there existed an effective system for monitoring and evaluation and a prompt

follow up mechanism.

3. Audit methodology

An entry conference was held with MoEF on 18 November 2005 where the audit objectives

and methodology were explained. The effectiveness of the financial, managerial,

compliance and regulatory inputs used in the project was examined during the course of

performance audit through test checks of records in MoEF, PTD and the Wildlife

Institute of India (WII) by the Principal Director of Audit (Scientific Departments). The

records of the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Wildlife Warden, Project

Directorates and Range Offices of 24 out of 28 Tiger Reserves were scrutinized by

the Principal Accountants General/Accountants General of the States where these Tiger

Reserves are located.

4. Planning for Tiger Reserves

4.1 Management Plan and Annual Plan of Operations

4.1.1 The IX Plan proposal for the continuation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS)

“Project Tiger” was approved by the Government in June 1999 with the direction that for

monitoring purposes, a master plan for development of each of the reserves should be

prepared. Achievement of physical targets was to be compared with the master plan. PTD

stated in March 2006 that the Management Plans (MPs) of the Tiger Reserves were the

master plans.

4.1.2 The Management Plan is prepared by the Tiger Reserves and is to be approved by the

State Governments concerned and the PTD. The Annual Plans of Operations (APOs)

were drawn based on these MPs every year and it depicted the physical and financial

targets. The MP serves as the basic document for the preparation and approval of the

APO.

4.2 Deficiencies in Management Plans

4.2.1 MPs were not prepared and PTD failed to follow up: It was noticed that MPs of nine

Tiger Reserves were not available at the Project Tiger Directorate (PTD). There was no

evidence to indicate that these had indeed been prepared. It was seen that MPs of Tiger

Reserves at Valmiki (2000-04), Melghat, Pench Maharashtra (2000-04), Kalakad

(2001-02 onwards) and Kanha (2000-01) had not been prepared. In a circular issued in July

2005, PTD requested all the Tiger Reserves to clarify whether they had approved MPs and

whether APOs were submitted as per MPs. This indicated that PTD was not keeping track

of the receipt of approved MPs for processing APOs. It also reflected the absence of any

internal control mechanism in the PTD regarding MP.

4.2.2 MPs remained to be approved

As per the guideline from the WII in November 1997, MPs would come into force only if

these were approved by the State Government and the Government of India. However

PTD did not have a mechanism to ensure that MPs received from Tiger Reserves had

approval of the State Governments concerned. Besides, there was no system for technical

scrutiny at PTD. It was seen in audit that the MPs of Tiger Reserves at Namdapha

(1997-2006), Manas (2002-07), Valmiki (2004-14), Indravati (2000-10), Simlipal (2001-

11), Katarniaghat and Dudhwa (2000-2010) and Corbett (1999-2009) had not been

approved by the State Governments concerned. Lack of State Government

approval would affect the project, the State‟s approval being critical in ensuring the flow of

matching funds from them.

4.2.3 MPs not formulated properly

A test check of some of the MPs available at the PTD revealed that in many cases, due care

had not been taken in the preparation of MPs. They were based on very old statistics and

physical and financial milestones were not clearly laid down. Some problems noticed in the

reserves are indicated in the table below:

Name of Tiger Reserve and period of Management Plan and lapses observed in the MPs

1. Corbett (Uttaranchal) - MP for the period 1999-2009

Audit observed that the yearly activities/strategies laid down in the Management Plan were not reflected in the

Annual Plan of Operations for the corresponding period as indicated below:

Name of Tiger Reserve and period of Management Plan and lapses observed in the MPs

Though there was no provision for construction of quarters in 2000-01 as per

Management Plan, the same was included in the APO of the same year.

Target as per Management Plan was to strengthen the existing 29 patrolling chowkis, however as per APO

construction of new patrolling camps was approved.

Issues relating to topography maps, vegetation, animal distribution and migration, water holes, roads and boundaries

were not properly addressed.

2. Panna (Madhya Pradesh) - MP for the period 2002-12

The Management Plan was based on statistics dated five to ten years back from the period of the

Plan as follows:

Statistics for the period 1982-95, 1985-96, 1983-96 were reckoned for annual rainfall, animal population and

poaching cases including fishing respectively. Statistics relating to fire incidences were for the period 1991-92 to 1995-

96.

There were no records of any diseases/epidemics in wild animals or in cattle.

Summary of problems faced by the people that affect the management of Protected Area pertains only up to 1996.

The Theme Plans spelling out future strategies did not spell out yearly targets.

Financial projections of the activities in the Management Plan had not been spelt out.

No time frame has been laid down for achievement of the theme plans/strategies depicted.

3. Buxa(West Bengal) - MP for the period 1998-2010

No financial projections were made to give an idea of the funds that would be required for achievement of

objectives laid down in the Management Plan.

4. Kanha (Madhya Pradesh) - MP for the period 2001-11

No clear definition of yearly physical and financial targets was laid down.

No time frame was set for achievement of the envisaged objectives.

There was no clear correlation of activities envisaged in the MP to that laid down in the APO.

5. Bandipur and Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary (Karnataka) – MP for the period 2000-05

Issues relating to role of Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in development of the reserves, training plans for the staff, Degraded Habitat Restoration Plan, Buffer Zone Development Plan and Tourism Management Plan were not

addressed.

6. Sunderbans (West Bengal) – MP for the period 2001-10

Physical targets under various activities were not depicted. Similarly analysis of strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats for the Tiger Reserve area were not addressed in the MP.

4.3 Deficiency in the Annual Plan of Operations

Annual plans are to be prepared on the basis of management plans. PTD is expected to

process and approve the APOs on the basis of the respective MPs. Audit however revealed

that APOs of Manas, Nameri, Pakke, Pench (Madhya Pradesh), Periyar, Bandhavgarh,

Kalakad and Valmiki Tiger Reserves for the period 2000-06, Melghat Tiger Reserve for

2000-04 and Bandipur, Bhadra, Indravati, Sariska, Satpura, Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserves

for 2005-06 were processed and central assistance released without ensuring availability

of approved and valid MPs at PTD. Besides, in reserves where MPs existed, there

were wide deviations between the MPs and the corresponding APOs. Further the actual

release of assistance was not based on either the MP or the APO as indicated in Annexure-

1.

The table below illustrates the activities not carried out due to differences in funds

demanded as per APO and funds sanctioned by MoEF during 2001-05 in some Tiger

Reserves.

(Rupees in crore)

Tiger Reserve/ State Funds demanded

Funds sanctioned

Activities not taken up due to shortage of funds

Ranthambore, Rajasthan 78.94 10.87 Periodicity for vaccination of animals, relocation of villages, rehabilitation of nomadic tribe, development of prey base, plan for education and awareness.

Tadoba-Andhari,

Maharashtra

0.06 0.02 Soil and water conservation, development of meadows.

Pench, Maharashtra 0.31 0.09

In March 2006, PTD attributed the variations to restricted release of funds to States

depending upon their capacity. PTD further contended that the financial projections were

not really required in the MPs. In essence, thus the Plan outlays were prepared by the

PTD without obtaining inputs from Tiger Reserves and there was no system to ensure

that the resources were allocated as per the identified needs and the approved

prioritisation of various activities and needs of the Tiger Reserves. The existence of an

inbuilt procedure in the system for accountability and involvement of the Tiger Reserves

in the implementation of the schemes was missing. PTD stated in March 2006 that a bill

had been introduced in Parliament for amending the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 to

insert a Chapter for according statutory authority to Project Tiger and to have a say in

the planning process of the States and to redress difficulties on these issues.

4.4 Mapping of National Parks

4.4.1 In March 2004, MoEF sanctioned a project at a the cost of Rs 1.39 crore for

mapping of Wildlife Sanctuaries/National Parks by Wildlife Institute of India (WII),

Dehradun. The project was to be completed within 36 months. It aimed to generate

accurate, reliable and latest base line spatial information on forest types and density (using

satellite imagery) and topographic features (supplemented by latest satellite imagery),

which could be of direct relevance for preparation/revision of Management Plans of

wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. The project objective further stated that efforts

would be made to incorporate the compartment-wise plant and animal density, diversity

and richness in management plans to enable the wildlife managers to use the information

directly for conservation and management purposes. After completion of this pilot project

in five specified National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries, the countrywide mapping and

monitoring of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks were to be continued by WII

in coordination with the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS), National Remote

Sensing Agency (NRSA) and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) for the generation of

baseline digital data of all Protected Areas for effective management.

4.4.2 Out of the five sites selected for this pilot project, three were Tiger Reserves namely

Corbett, Tadoba-Andhari and Dudhwa. The identified targets included generation of

satellite data by July 2004 and securing Survey of India (SOI) topographic maps by

September 2004. However, both activities were not completed even as of March 2006. As

against the projected expenditure of Rs 1.20 crore in the first two years, Rs 0.73 crore was

released of which only Rs 0.30 crore was spent till the end of February 2006 indicating poor

progress of the project. A project review committee was constituted in December 2004 and

though the project envisaged half yearly review, so far only one project meeting was held in

March 2005. While accepting the facts, WII attributed (March 2006) the shortfall in

achieving the targets to delay in the induction of research personnel for the project and also

the delay on the part of SOI in providing the topographic maps. It further stated that all the

bottlenecks have been resolved and SOI maps would be made available to the

researchers shortly and the results would provide new insights for the development of

spatial database, which would be useful for other Protected Areas in the country.

The tardy implementation of the project meant lack of quality information to the

reserves for framing their management plans.

Recommendations:

• All Tiger Reserves should have a well-formulated management plan to ensure that long and

medium term targets are not lost sight of. The annual plans of operations should be based on

the management plans to ensure judicious allocation of resources. While enabling a planned

approach to tiger conservation, it would provide a measure for achievement of targets against

efforts made.

• Efforts may be made to complete the mapping of Tiger Reserves on time so that the

management plans are based on reliable information.

5. Financial Management

5.1 Funding pattern

Project Tiger was launched in 1973 with 100 per cent Central Assistance. From the VI

Five Year Plan (1980-81 to 1984-85) onwards recurring expenditure was shared by

Central and States in equal proportion. However, the Centre continued to meet 100 per

cent of the non-recurring expenses. The Central Government also meets the entire

cost of Project Allowance introduced during the IX Plan to the staff working in the

Tiger Reserves as well as the entire cost of relocation of families from the Tiger Reserves.

The projects on Eco-development and Beneficiary Oriented Tribal Development (BOTD)

which were pursued as independent Centrally sponsored projects till the end of the IX Plan

were merged with the Project Tiger in the X Plan. A provision of Rs 150 crore was made

for Project Tiger in the X Plan. Central Government had provided Rs 237.75 crore as

financial assistance to the Tiger Reserves till 31 March 2005 since the commencement of

the project in 1973. In addition, an India Eco-development Project (IEDP) was

conceived in October 1997 with the assistance of the World Bank and the Global

Environment Facility (GEF). IEDP was implemented in five Tiger Reserves and two

National Parks. The cost of the project was US$ 67 Million. The project was financed

partly by the World Bank loan (US$ 28 Million) and the GEF grant (US$ 20 Million). The

rest of the contributing agencies were Government of India and the participating States

(US$ 14.60 million) and the project beneficiaries (US$ 4.40 million). The project was

completed in June 2004.

5.1.1 EFC clearance not obtained

The Ministry proposed creation of eight new Tiger Reserves in the Xth Plan period. This

involves requirement of Central Assistance for several new items of work such as

providing ex-gratia payment to villagers residing in the vicinity of the project area in

the event of loss of life. Inclusion of the new activities in the Plan proposals called for the

clearance of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC). MoEF sought EFC clearance

only in February 2005 after a delay of 34 months. The Planning Commission in July 2005

held that EFC approval should be sought for the total cost estimates including the State

share and desired that the criteria adopted for the creation of the new Tiger Reserves be

specified. Besides, the Planning Commission desired that the success criteria to be adopted

for assessing the impact of the scheme be laid down. PTD did not furnish the information

and as a result, EFC clearance for the X Plan proposal of PTD was pending even as of

March 2006. PTD stated in reply (March 2006) that though a proposal for inclusion of the

above additional items was drawn up, it was not processed and kept in abeyance for

reconsideration and a fresh proposal with appropriate modifications would be sent to the

Planning Commission after the constitution of National Tiger Conservation Authority

(NTCA). The decision to defer the creation of new Tiger Reserves till the constitution of

National Tiger Conservation Authority has to be viewed against the need to bring more

areas under protection as emphasized in the report of the Working Group on Wildlife

Sector of the Ministry for the X Five Year Plan.

5.2 Adhoc allocation of funds to Tiger Reserves

5.2.1 Funds allocated without norms

PTD did not project their plan requirements based on the inputs received from the Tiger

Reserves. No Reserve wise break up of allocations and budget was available at PTD. Thus

it was not possible to ascertain if the funds earmarked for a particular Tiger Reserve were

not diverted to other Tiger Reserves. PTD in reply stated in March 2006 that it projected

the demand for its plan and annual allocation based on the expenditure over the years vis-a-

vis the MPs and the APOs. However, specific information about areas where funding was

to be provided in each Tiger Reserve was essential to ensure that projection and release of

funds were consistent with the identified priority areas. While admitting this fact, PTD

stated in March 2006 that it was in the process of improving the norms for providing

funding to Tiger Reserves and once the system was streamlined, the depiction of financial

allocation to Tiger Reserves and their phasing would be more meaningful and the

National Tiger Conservation Authority by virtue of its statutory provision, would

address these issues through rules.

5.2.2 Allocation of funds to Tiger Reserves widely divergent

Audit analysed the fund allocation across Tiger Reserves against the area covered

and the number of tigers. In both cases wide divergences were noticed. The funds

released for different Tiger Reserves could not be correlated to the areas of the Tiger

Reserves or the tiger population. During the period 1997-2005, the average funds

released per sq. kilometre of Tiger Reserve area amounted to Rs 5560 but the amount

actually released varied from Rs 25,968 per sq. km in respect of Panna to only Rs 640

sq. km to Nagarjunsagar. Similarly, the average allocation per tiger during the period

1997-2005 was Rs 1.33 lakh but the amount actually allocated varied from Rs 10.99 lakh

in case of Dampa to Rs 0.94 lakh in case of Melghat.

In the face of such wide divergences in allocation and absence of formal criteria to

explain the divergence, it was not possible to link the targets with fund allocation. PTD

stated in March 2006 that the fund release was site specific and could not be

correlated with the area of the Tiger Reserves and the population of the tigers in a reserve.

However, it added that action has been initiated for categorising the Tiger Reserves under

four categories viz. (i) established Tiger Reserves without any major problems, (ii)

problematic old reserves, (iii) upcoming reserves not consolidated and (iv) new reserves.

According to the PTD, prioritisation of various activities for providing funds under

recurring and non-recurring heads would be taken up in a rational manner in the

coming years.

5.3 Distortions in release of funds

5.3.1 Central Assistance not released by States timely

As per the directive issued by the PTD in May 2000, the State Governments were to release

Central Assistance to Tiger Reserves within six weeks from the date of its receipt. A test

check in Audit revealed that there were delays ranging from 1 to 8 months in the release of

Central Assistance to the reserves in Assam, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil

Nadu etc. as detailed in Annexure-2. Delay in the release of Central Assistance to the field

formations has to be viewed against Honorable Supreme Court‟s direction in February

2005 that the State Government should release the Central Assistance within 15 days of its

receipt. The PTD in March 2006 cited delay in the release of Central Assistance by

States as one of the difficulties faced in the implementation and monitoring of the

scheme.

5.3.2 Late release of funds leading to low utilization by the reserves

As of March 2005, out of Rs 87.11 crore released to 28 Tiger Reserves during the period

2002-05, Rs 77.53 crore was utilized. In Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh

against liberal Central Assistance of Rs 10.45 crore, Rs 11.06 crore and Rs 25 crore

respectively, only Rs 8.16 crore, Rs 4.13 crore and Rs 19.50 crore were utilised during the

period 2002-2005. PTD in reply stated that the poor utilization of Central Assistance was

due to late release of central funds by States to field formations. The PTD also informed

that the unspent central assistance was adjusted in subsequent releases or revalidated and

as of March 2006 no huge unspent Central Assistance under the Project Tiger

was left with States. However Audit observed that out of Rs 4.63 crore provided to Tadoba

in Maharashtra for relocation during 2002- 03, Rs 1.27 crore only was spent even as of

March 2006.

5.3.3 Short release of matching contribution by State Government

As per the funding pattern of Project Tiger, the recurring expenditure was to be shared by

the States and the Central Government in equal proportion. However, a test check in Audit

revealed that in Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Bihar as against the State share of Rs 1.13

crore, Rs 80.85 lakh only was made available by the State Government during 2000-

05. The short release of matching contribution thus worked out to more than 28 per cent.

This depicts low commitment of the State in conservation measures in the Tiger Reserve.

5.3.4 Diversion of Central Assistance by States

Test check in audit revealed diversions of Central Assistance in some States. A few such

cases are mentioned below.

Name of the Reserve/ Details of diversion of Central Assistance

1. Melghat, Maharashtra

A proposal to include 350 km2 area of Wan, Ambabarwa and Narnala Sanctuary under Melghat Tiger Reserve was submitted to MoEF in June 2003 by the Government of Maharashtra. However, as of March 2006, MoEF had not

approved the proposal. Notwithstanding these facts, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Akot incurred an expenditure

of Rs 50.16 lakh on various wildlife related activities during 2001-05 out of the Central Assistance of Rs 54.06 lakh in

the area not included in the Melghat Tiger Reserve. The expenditure amounted to unauthorized diversion of Central Assistance.

2. Manas, Assam

MoEF sanctioned Rs 51.40 lakh in 2000-01 for the creation of a Strike Force consisting of four police platoons for

protection of Manas Tiger Reserve. Of this, Rs 20.40 lakh was meant for recurring expenditure and the balance Rs

31 lakh was for non-recurring items. However, no expenditure has been incurred for creation of strike force till

March 2004. It was observed in Audit that Rs 84.30 lakh including Rs 51.40 lakh of unspent balance of 2000-01 was

revalidated and released for the APO for 2004-05 for various activities, other than creation of the Strike Force.

Thus, the purpose for which Rs 51.40 lakh was initially sanctioned remained unfulfilled and funds were

diverted for other purposes.

3. Nagarhole Extension of Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Karnataka

Grant of Rs 7.75 lakh was provided to Nagarhole National Park at Karnataka during 2003-04 for the construction of

quarters, anti-poaching camps, formation of armed police, patrolling tracks and census under non-recurring items. In

addition, Rs 6.54 lakh was provided under the recurring head for maintenance of roads and employment of tribal

people for protection duties. However, the entire provision of Rs 14.29 lakh under these heads were diverted towards

payment of outstanding wages of anti-poaching watchers engaged on daily wage basis for the reason that no separate

allocation of funds was provided for the same.

5.3.5 Booking of recurring expenditure to non-recurring head

Non-recurring expenditure on the project is borne by the Central Government. Expenses

booked by 20 reserves over the five-year period of 2000-2005 were checked in audit. It was

seen that in 43 cases out of 100, expenditure on annual estimation, a recurring

expense, was booked as non-recurring. Depicting the expenditure on annual

estimation under non-recurring head entailed an additional burden of Rs 36.99 lakh on

the Central Government. This accounted for 50 per cent of the bookings under non-

recurring heads (Rs 73.98 lakh booked under non-recurring). PTD accepted in March 2006

that expenditure on annual estimation/census qualifies for matching grants only under

the recurring head. A comparison of Management Plan targets and the proposals included

in the APO of Dudhwa revealed that certain items of works were shifted from

„recurring‟ to „non-recurring‟ heads putting extra burden on the Central Government. The

target for „non-recurring‟ expenditure was increased to Rs 16.80 crore from Rs 9.35

crore and that for „recurring expenditure‟ was reduced from Rs 26.14 crore to Rs 14.69

crore. Dudhwa Tiger Reserve did not intimate any reason for this change.

5.3.6 Payment of Project Allowance without safeguards

Considering the harsh and difficult condition in which the officers and staff of Tiger

Reserves work, the Government in June 1999 approved 100 per cent Central Assistance

for the payment of project allowance. PTD sanctioned project allowance to Tiger

Reserves without insisting on any certified list of staff from the States. Some Tiger Reserves

registered steep increase in the expenditure on project allowance over 2000-05 as shown in

the table below. However, PTD neither ascertained the reasons for such steep increase in

the payments nor ensured that the Tiger Reserves were not claiming project allowance on

vacant posts.

(Rupees in lakh)

Sl.

No. Name of the Tiger

Reserve Project allowance expenditure

during 2000-01 2004-

05 1. Bandipur 6.

50 18.23

2. Palamau 2.

13 24.00

3. Sariska 7.

00 20.00

4. Nagarjunsagar 8.

50 11.50

5. Panna 3.

75 6.00

6. Bhadra 2.

42 7.30

7. Kalakad 4.

61 10.00

8. Indravati 3.

11 6.32

9. Tadoba-Andhari 3.

00 6.05

Test check in Audit revealed weaknesses in regulation of the project allowance

expenditure by various Tiger Reserves. The allowance was paid to ineligible personnel and

funds demanded on this account were more than what could actually be spent as shown in

the table below:

Name of Tiger Reserve /Remarks

1. Simlipal, Orissa

Out of Rs 15 lakh released to Simlipal Tiger Reserve in 2005-06, Rs 7.31 lakh were to the staff working in three

divisions outside the Tiger Reserve.

2. Sariska, Rajasthan

There was an unspent balance of Rs 11 lakh as of 31 March 2005 against the release made for the payment of project

allowance to Sariska Tiger Reserve during 2003-04. During 2005-06, again Rs 20 lakh was released for payment of

project allowance. However, expenditure for payment of project allowance during 2005-06 was only Rs 11.65 lakh.

Thus, the release of Rs 19 lakh for the payment of project allowance during 2005-06 to Sariska Tiger Reserve lacked

financial propriety in as much the unspent balance of Rs 11 lakh on project allowance carried forward by it to 2005-

06 was almost enough to meet the expenditure of Rs 11.65 lakh on project allowance during 2005-06.

3. Sunderbans/Buxa, West Bengal

Project allowance though admissible only to the field staff, Sunderbans Tiger Reserve utilized Central Assistance of Rs 6.96 lakh for the payment of project allowance to the ministerial staff. Similarly, Buxa Tiger Reserve had also

used Central Assistance of Rs 54.37 lakh for the payment of project allowance to the staff who were not eligible for it

during 2000-05.

4. Indravati, Chattisgarh

Indravati Tiger Reserve at Chattisgarh claimed Central Assistance for the project allowance on the basis of sanctioned

strength where as the disbursement was made on the basis of men-in-position. Men-in-position was less than sanctioned number of posts during 2000-01 to 2004-05. As against a financial sanction of Rs 25.42 lakh, only Rs 14.00

lakh was spent on project allowance.

PTD stated in March 2006 that certified list of posts sanctioned and detailed reasons for the

steep increase in the payment of project allowance would be obtained from the States and

made available to Audit.

5.3.7 Non realization of revenue

A test check in Audit revealed lack of promptness in realization of revenue due to the

Forest Departments in Andhra Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Maharashtra and Karnataka as

indicated below :

Name of Tiger Reserve/ Remarks

1. Nagarjunsagar, Andhra Pradesh

Over the years, 65.13 km2

were diverted for 12 items of work for Irrigation, Hydro-electric power, Road/bridge construction and mining activities at Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserves. Even though, the beneficiary organizations had deposited Rs 11.99 crore as of April 2006, the Andhra Pradesh Government had transferred only Rs 60 lakh to the

Forest Department. No details were available for the balance items of works.

2. Corbett, Uttaranchal Outstanding revenue on account of petty demand, royalty, marking fees, late fees, extension fees and lease rent etc. to the

extent of Rs 1.50 crore accrued before 2001-02 from the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation were pending to be recovered

by Uttaranchal Government as of March 2006. An amount of Rs 3.48 lakh was also due from the Uttaranchal Forest

Development Corporation


Rates of entry to Melghat Tiger Reserve for tourists were revised from 17 May 2004. Deputy Conservator of Forests

however continued to levy entry fees at the old rate, which led to loss of Government revenue to the tune of Rs 14.37

lakh from tourists during 2004-05.

Recommendations:

Allocation of financial resources to Tiger Reserves needs to be streamlined.

PTD should establish formal criteria for allocation of funds and prioritize the Tiger

Reserves based on their threat perception.

The issues relating to late release of central funds, diversion of funds and short release of

counterpart funds by the States need to be addressed at appropriate levels to ensure

that tiger conservation efforts become fruitful.

The expenditure authorized under the „recurring‟ and „non-recurring‟ heads should be

explicitly defined and actual classification of funds should be checked.

6. Biotic Pressure

6.1 Norms for Tiger Reserves

Tiger population breeds well and grows rapidly in habitats without

incompatible human uses. They cannot co-exist with people particularly in a

situation where both humanimpacts and live stock grazing is continuously on

the increase. The long-term survival of the tiger therefore depends on how

secure and inviolate are the Protected Areas they live in. Expert international

advisers had suggested in 1972 that the best method of protection of the tiger was

to have a large area of at least 2000 km2 with a similar contiguous area to ensure a

viable population of about 300 tigers in each such area. Considering the difficulty to

locate such a large area in the Indian context, Special Task Force decided in 1972 to

create Tiger Reserves with an average area of 1500 km2 with at least 300 km2 as core

area. Thus, for management purposes, each Tiger Reserve is broadly divided into two

parts namely core and buffer. In the core area, forestry operations, collection of

forest produce, grazing, human settlement and other human disturbances are not

allowed. In the buffer zone, strictly controlled wildlife oriented forestry operations

and grazing are allowed.

6.1.1 Creation of Tiger Reserves inconsistent with norms

28 Tiger Reserves were created under Project Tiger. In 15 Tiger Reserves the minimum

area was less than 720 km2 i.e. less than half the prescribed area. In six out of these fifteen

reserves, Palamau, Ranthambore, Pench (Madhya Pradesh), Tadoba-Andhari, Bhadra

and Pench (Maharashtra), even the core area was less than the prescribed 300 km2. In 14

of them, there were human settlements. Human settlements existed even in the core

areas of Palamau, Rathambore, Sariska, Kalakad, Panna and Pench (Maharashtra)

Tiger Reserves. Further, four Tiger Reserves, viz., Pench (Maharashtra), Pakhui,

Panna and Satpura Tiger Reserves were created without ensuring existence of any buffer

zones. While admitting that the biotic disturbance in the form of human settlements and

other land use disturb tigers and that there were no functional buffer zone under the

unified control of the Field Directors in several reserves, PTD stated in March 2006

that these areas were brought under the project coverage considering the threat faced by

the tiger population there. It also stated that the core area of the Tiger Reserves can be

increased once the surrounding buffer zones are freed from disturbances and a National

Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) with statutory powers is being established

to address such issues. The reply has to be viewed against the fact that the core area in

the Tiger Reserves at Palamau and Ranthamborecontinued to be less than 300 km2

even 34 years after their creation (1973-74).

6.1.2 Tiger Reserves not notified

As per Section 35 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, the State Government notifies an

area as a National Park. The notification provides the legal basis for ensuring protection.

However, in many Tiger Reserves, the final declaration procedures of National Park (Core)

and Sanctuary (Buffer) were pending even as of March 2006 even though the amended

Wildlife (Protection) Act 2003 set a time-limit for completion of acquisition proceedings.

The details of the Tiger Reserves where the final notification and boundary demarcation

are pending are given in Annexure-3. The Annexure reveals that in case of Indravati,

Kanha, Pench, Palamau, Bandhavgarh, Panna, Simlipal and Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger

Reserves, the final notification has not been issued even as of March 2006 though these

reserves were created during 1973-95. In the case of Tiger Reserves at Bandipur, Corbett

and Namdapha, notification for inclusion of additional areas in the Tiger Reserves were

not issued. Similarly, in the case of the Tiger Reserves at Manas, Indravati, Ranthambore,

Sariska and Buxa boundary demarcation was not completed. This depicts lack of

commitment and seriousness of the concerned State Governments while denying legal

backing to the boundaries of the reserves.

6.1.3 Creation of new Tiger Reserves

Though the Government approved the proposal for creation of six new Tiger Reserves in

the IX Plan, only four were created. Similarly, though PTD proposed to create eight

new Tiger Reserves in the X Plan, none was created till March 2006. PTD stated in

March 2006 that the proposals were not dropped but only kept in abeyance and

would be processed further after creation of National Tiger Conservation Authority.

The time lost in the creation of the Tiger Reserves has to be viewed against PTD‟s own

contention that one of the considerations for the creation of new Tiger Reserves was to

reduce the disturbance to the tigers. Besides, the report of the Working Group on Wildlife

Sector for the X Plan of MoEF had also emphasised the need to bring more areas under

Project Tiger.

6.2 Relocation of families residing in the Tiger Reserves

One of the main thrusts of Project Tiger is protection and mitigation of negative

human impacts for comprehensive revival of natural ecosystems in the Tiger Reserves and

to create favourable atmosphere to increase the tiger population. Hence, to a great extent,

the success of the Project Tiger depends on the relocation of persons living in the core and

the buffer areas of the Tiger Reserves.

6.2.1 Absence of a road map for the relocation of families

The records in PTD indicated existence of 1487 villages with 64,951 families in the core

and buffer areas in 26 out of the 28 Tiger Reserves as of July 2005. The distribution of

villages and families in the Tiger Reserves since their creation is indicated in Annexure-

4, which reflects the increasing encroachment of the Tiger Reserves and the ineffectiveness

of the efforts to keep them encroachment free by moving out the families.

Out of the families residing in the Tiger Reserves 17,650 families were in the core area and

the remaining 47,301 families were in the buffer zone. The current cost of relocation of a

family is Rs 1 lakh which has been suggested to be enhanced to Rs 2.5 lakh by experts,

appointed by the Government. At current rates, the cost of relocation of all the

families living in the Tiger Reserves works out to Rs 649.51 crore which will

increase to Rs 1623.78 crore if the enhanced rates are implemented. When the payment

for land is also considered, the total cost of relocation would be Rs 11041.68 crore as

shown in the table below:

(Rupees in crore)

Cost of relocation Core Area Buffer Zone Overall Tiger

Reserve No. of villages :

273

No. of families:

17650

Population: 101077

No. of villages :

1,214

No. of families:

47,301

Population:

279458

No. of villages :

1,487

No. of families:

64,951

Population:

380535

1. Estimated cost at the current

rate of Rs 1 lakh per family 176.

50 473.

01 649.

51

2. Estimated cost at the enhanced rate of Rs 2.5 lakh per

family

441.

25 1,182.

53 1,623.

78

3. For payment for land @ Rs 5.8 lakh per hectare and 2.5

hectare per family

2,559.

25 6858.

65 9,417.

90

Total cost assuming enhanced

cost (2+

3)

3,000.

50 8041.

18 11,041.68

As against this huge fund requirement, a meagre allocation of Rs 10.50 crore was provided

for the relocation of families under Beneficiary Oriented Tribal Development scheme in

the X Plan. The amount provided could at best relocate 1050 families (at current

rates) which is approximately 5 per cent of the families residing in the core areas of the

Tiger Reserves. Thus the fund allocation was wholly disproportionate to the magnitude of

the problem.

While accepting the above facts, PTD stated in March 2006 that even though the Wildlife

Protection Act, 1972 gave the mandate for settlement of rights of affected people, many

States have not accomplished the task due to problems associated with displacement

including the resentment of local people. PTD further stated that MoEF has directed the

WII in December 2005 to assess the inviolate spaces required in all the Protected Areas in

the country including Tiger Reserves after standardising the norms within a time frame of

five years. The financial requirement for relocation would be included in the XI plan. The

reply indicates absence of a road map or firm commitment for the relocation of

villages/families living even in the core area of the Tiger Reserves, after 34 years of

implementation of the project.

6.2.2 Lapses in the relocation strategies pursued by the States

Shortcomings were noticed in the relocation efforts of the States. MoEF released Rs

21.89 lakh in 1989-90 for the relocation of families at Bandhavgarh Tiger

Reserve. The entire fund was kept in civil deposits and not utilised for the stated purpose.

In Maharashtra, Rs 4 crore released by MoEF in 2002-03 for the relocation of families from

Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve remained unutilized. Relocation from Kalakad Tiger

Reserve was not taken up by the Tamil Nadu Government despite payment of Rs 55 lakh

in March 1992 to the Collector and allotment of alternative site in 2004. Similarly, out of

Rs 1 crore released by MoEF in March 2003 for the relocation of families from Corbett

Tiger Reserve, Uttranchal Government kept Rs 95 lakh under forest deposit while

rehabilitation programme were included in the APOs of Corbett Tiger Reserve during

2000-05. In the Simlipal Tiger Reserve, relocation of the families had not succeeded, as the

alternate site offered was not suitable for irrigation. Similarly, it was observed that in

the Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, villagers filed a petition against relocation, as Court‟s order

for financial help to villagers for construction of houses was not implemented. These cases

indicated lack of concern by the State Governments in relocation of the villagers

from the Tiger Reserves.

6.3 Encroachment of Protected Area

As per Section 27 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, no person other than that specified

in the Section shall enter or reside in a Sanctuary or a National Park except and in

accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under Section 28 of the Act. Section 34

A ibid vested powers in an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests to

evict any person who occupies Government land in contravention of the provisions of

the Act from the National Park. Such Officer was also delegated powers to

remove unauthorized structures, buildings or constructions erected on any Government

land and tools and effects belonging to encroachers shall be confiscated. Test check in audit

revealed that encroachments were widespread in several Tiger Reserves affecting the

quality of conservation adversely. Land pertaining to Tiger Reserves were encroached

upon either by communities or by private companies and the States had not been able to

remove the encroachments with the result that Protected Areas were subjected to increasing

biotic pressures. The problems of encroachments observed in some Tiger Reserves were

as below:

Name of States and magnitude of encroachment


The area under encroachment at Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve was 13,793.81 hectares in

2003. It was identified that 3220 encroachers existed in 23 per cent of the encroached area. In the remaining 77 per cent

of the encroached land, the Forest Department did not identify the number of encroachers even as of April 2006. As per the Management Plan of 1990-

2005, certain tribes had migrated from Maharashtra where they were not accorded Scheduled

Tribe status. They had encroached upon 3500 acres (1416 hectares) of forest land raisingcommercial crops like

cotton and subsistence crops like Sorghum, Jowar, etc. They used high concentrated pesticides to protect the crops

from pests which were polluting the Eco-System. In 1995, the MoEF had acknowledged that some outsiders had settled

in the villages in the core area. The fact that the original inhabitants were willing to move but the new

settlers were not seen as a dangerous trend by the MoEF. It was emphasized that steps should be taken by the State Government to restrict any new settlement inside the TigerReserve and relocate the existing ones

2. Namdapha, Arunachal Pradesh

462 persons encroached upon 131 hectares of land in the unexplored core zone of Namdapha Tiger Reserve and were

living there since 1995. The Forest Department in consultation with civil administration served notices on the encroachers for vacating the forest land between February and May 2003. The matter was frequently discussed by

arranging meetings with superior officers of the Central and State Governments and the State Board of Wild Life. But

these evoked no results even as of March 2006.

3. Manas, Assam

1600 hectares of land in Kahitema Reserve Forest under Panbari range was encroached by about 905 Bodo families with

4500 population in 1991. Though evicted three times (1994,1995, and 2002) these encroachers have re-encroached the

same area. The last eviction operation was carried out in 2002 in compliance of order of Hon‟ble Supreme

Court. However the settlers had re-encroached the area.

4. Valmiki, Bihar

Encroachment register was not being maintained though encroachment cases had been registered. Scrutiny disclosed that out of 186 hectares encroached land, 67 hectares was restored and encroachment cases for 50 hectares

were pending and no action was found on record to restore the rest 69 hectares of encroached land. Apart from that,

5380 acres (2152 hectares) of land, which was in dispute with Government of Nepal, was under encroachment since

1988.

5. Bhadra and Bandipur, Karnataka

In Bhadra and Bandipur Tiger Reserves, there was encroachment to the extent of 52.04 hectares of the notified area even

as of March 2006.

6. Melghat and Tadoba-Andhari, Maharashtra

In Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, 199.45 hectares of land scattered in 9 villages within the Tiger Reserve was

under possession of SCs/STs/Tribals. Government of Maharashtra directed that the land encroached by

SCs/STs/Tribals should not be evicted and a move to regularize these encroachments could be made in near future. In

Melghat Tiger Reserve,1141.258 hectares of land had been encroached by villagers. However, records of the Reserve

indicated that only 875.299 hectares area was under encroachment. When this discrepancy was pointed out, it was stated

that 266.59 hectares area was under encroachment by tribals and as per the orders of the Government, these

encroachments were to be regularised and therefore, it was not reported.

7. Sariska and Ranthambore, Rajasthan Out of 257 cases of encroachment registered during 2003-05, 195 were decided by imposing nominal penalties by the Divisional Conservator of Forest (DCF), Ranthambore (Buffer), Karauli leaving 62 cases (involving 677 bigha forest land) unsettled. Out of 86 cases of encroachments of 231.24 ha land registered during2000-2005 by the DCF, Ranthambore (Core), Sawai Madhopur, only 3 were decided, indicating slow progress. 14 cases of unauthorised

construction of pucca structures (houses, boundary walls and fencing etc.) were noticed even in the core area of Ranthambore Tiger Reserve despite deployment of regular patrolling forest staff. This indicated poor control mechanism of the protection management staff of the Tiger Reserve. Likewise 219 cases of encroachment covering 263.734 hectare and 1080 sq. ft. residential land were pending since 1994 in the Sariska Tiger Reserve. The DCF, Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (Core) stated in January 2006 that out of the 231.24 ha land encroached during 2000-2005, 70 ha land was still under dispute. However, the main constraints for non-disposal/delayed disposal of the cases were not intimated to Audit.

8. Buxa, West Bengal

The Management Plan envisaged thorough survey for identification of encroachment in the Buxa area. However, no such

survey was undertaken as of January 2006. Scrutiny revealed that 335 hectare of forest land had been under

encroachment. 101.86 hectare land was, however, recovered during 2003-04. Thus, 233.14 hectare of forest land still

remained under encroachment. Action taken by Buxa authorities to recover the balance encroached land was not on

record.

Encroachment in reserve areas intensified the biotic pressure on them and undermined

tiger conservation efforts.

6.4 Biotic pressure owing to activities of other departments

In addition to encroachment, audit observed that owing to the undesirable activities of

Electricity Boards, Tourism, Irrigation Departments etc., there was heavy biotic

pressure on Nagarjunsagar, Periyar, Ranthambore, Sariska, Corbett, Panna and Kalakad

Tiger Reserves. Besides, Nagarjunsagar, Valmiki, Melghat, Bhadra and Periyar Tiger

Reserves were also facing biotic pressure due to permitted activities such as highway and

roads and places of worships. The nature and extent of the biotic pressure in these reserves

is indicated in Annexure-5.

6.5 Tourism in reserve areas

Tourist facilities and places of worship often exist within the Tiger Reserves. Tadoba-

Andhari has tourist facilities within its core area. The Management Plan (1997-2007) of

the Tiger Reserve emphasized the need for the relocation of the tourist facilities to reduce

the traffic on roads passing through the core zone. However, APO of the Tiger Reserve for

2001-05 did not list any such activity. PTD stated in March 2006 that no time frame can be

fixed for the completion of this activity as day to day management of Tiger Reserves rest

with the States and necessary action has been initiated to provide statutory authority to

PTD to regulate tourism activities through an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act,

1972. Inordinate delay in the relocation of tourist facilities from the Tiger Reserve

indicated low concern of the PTD and the State to reduce the human disturbance even in

the core areas. In addition, the Srisailam temple at Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve, three

places of worship at Panna Tiger Reserve and coffee and tea plantations at Kalakad

Mundanthurai (Annexure-5) in the core areas of the Tiger Reserve, continue to exert biotic

pressure on these reserves. While studying the extinction of tigers from Sariska Tiger

Reserve, a four member committee headed by a former Principal Chief Conservator of

Forest, Madhya Pradesh had highlighted rush of tourists and devotees round the year to

temples, specially Pandapal temple located within the reserve. Besides, highways pass

through the Sariska Tiger Reserve making it prone to poaching and disturbances.

6.5.1 Delay in the preparation of eco-tourism norms

The National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) emphasized the need to develop national

guidelines on eco-tourism within Protected Areas on a priority basis by the end of 2004.

The guidelines would address the need for development of tourism management plan for

each Protected Area and conducting surveys for accommodation and tourist facility within

the Tiger Reserves. The need for relocation of tourist facilities outside the Tiger Reserves,

development of stringent standards of waste disposal, energy and water consumption as

well as construction plan and material used for construction could also be addressed.

However, the guidelines were not completed as of March 2006. PTD stated in March 2006

that MoEF is in the process of evolving a set of holistic guidelines for eco-tourism, which

will address all the aspects mentioned in the National Wildlife Action Plan. The delay in

developing the guidelines would have an adverse impact on conservation and eco-

development efforts in the reserves.

6.5.2 Compliance with PTD guidelines on tourism

PTD issued guidelines to regulate tourism in reserve areas in April 2003. The guidelines

highlighted the need for fixing a ceiling on the number of visitors entering at any time in

any given part of the Tiger Reserve. It prescribed the method for working out tourist

carrying capacity and emphasised the need to keep minimum distance between the vehicles

(500 meters) as well as between the tourist vehicles and the wild animals (30 meters)

etc. Since the Tiger Reserves are eco-typical repositories of vulnerable gene pool, the

guidelines also reiterated the need to ensure that no compromise or trade-off in wildlife

interests was made. However, there was no system in PTD to ensure that the States

complied with PTD directives in this regard.

The PTD guidelines underline the importance of separate tourism management policy

and assessment of tourist carrying capacity of the reserves. Audit revealed that in

many Tiger Reserves such as Nagarjunsagar, Palamau, Periyar, Pench (Madhya

Pradesh), Panna and Bandhavgarh there was neither a separate tourism management

policy nor did these Tiger Reserves assess the tourist carrying capacity of the reserve. Tiger

Reserves at Namdapha, Manas, Valmiki, Melghat, Tadoba-Andhari, Pench

(Maharashtra) and Ranthambore also did not have separate tourism management policy.

Simlipal, Sariska and Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserves had not worked out the

tourist carrying capacity.

It was seen that even as of March 2006, PTD had not identified the Tiger Reserves where

there was heavy tourist traffic creating management problems for Tiger Reserves. PTD

contended in March 2006 that the State Chief Wildlife Warden is the statutory

authority under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 for regulating tourism in Protected Areas

including Tiger Reserves. PTD admitted that in the States like Rajasthan, tourism in the

Tiger Reserves was managed by the State Tourism Department instead of the Forest

Department.In the absence of adequate monitoring by PTD, the guidelines failed to make

a dent in controlling eco-tourism.

6.5.3 Creation of development funds from tourism receipts

The Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2002 of MoEF envisaged that the revenue earned

from tourism should be used entirely to augment available resources for conservation. For

this purpose, a development fund would be created out of the revenue proceeds.

However, a test check in audit revealed that in respect of the following Tiger

Reserves though the revenue receipts during 2000-05 were considerable, no development

fund was created :

(Rupees in lakh)

S

l

.

N

o

.

Name of

Tiger

Reser

ve

Revenue receipts

realized during

2000-05

Remarks

1

. Simlipal, Orissa 49.03 Revenue realized from tourism was deposited into

Government Account and no development fund was created.

2 Corbett, Uttaranchal 608.78 No development fund created from the revenue realized from tourism. State Government had provided

Rs 15.60 lakh in 2004-05 which was only 11% of revenue

generated in 2003-04.

3

. Buxa, West Bengal 587.00 Though revenue earned which included tourism receipts was

Rs 5.87 crore upto 2005, no development fund has been

created.

4 Sariska, Rajasthan 133.14 An amount of Rs 1.33 crore has been realized from the tourists towards eco-development surcharge but no separate

fund was created for the same. Instead, the amount was

credited to the State Government Account defeating the very

purpose of levying surcharge for development of Protected

Areas.

Recommendations

Efforts may be made to augment the forest cover of the existing reserves; the proposal to

create eight new Tiger Reserves should be revived. The boundaries of the existing reserves

should be notified.

Simultaneously, the Government should make a firm commitment to relocate the local

families/villages from the core and buffer areas of the Tiger Reserves and draw a

comprehensive resettlement plan to this effect, adequately supported by a credible

financial package. Stringent steps need to be taken to evict the encroachers.

The Government should frame a comprehensive tourism management policy for the

Tiger Reserves clearly spelling out the roles of the PTD and the State authorities as

implementers. Tourism should be regulated such that human impact on conservation

efforts of ecologically sensitive areas is minimised.

7. Conservation of tigers in the Tiger Reserves

Conservation efforts include efforts at habitat restoration and improvement works.

This involves water management, grasslands development, weeding out lantana, soil

conservation works, habitat manipulation, management of wetlands and unique habitats,

etc. Audit observed that some of the action plans envisaged in National Wildlife Action

Plan oriented for corrective measures to improve the consolidation, protection and

habitat restoration in the Tiger Reserves lagged behind the identified milestones

as discussed in the succeeding paras.

7.1 Management of water holes in Tiger Reserves

Site-specific plan for water utilization by wildlife and water gap need to be worked out

for implementing development of water holes in Protected Areas. A test check in audit

revealed cases of pollution/contamination of water bodies, non-completion of

targeted waterworks, and inadequacy of funds for water works. A few cases of such

deficiencies are depicted below.

Name of Reserves and Deficiencies observed

1. Bandipur, Karnataka

Out of 201 Water Bodies in Bandipur Tiger Reserve, desilting works had been taken up only in 57

(28 per cent) water bodies during the period 2000-2005 due to paucity of funds. Hence, availability

of water to wildlife especially in dry seasons could not be ensured. The Divisional Officer, Bandipur replied that the existing water bodies could not be desilted periodically due to insufficient budget for

this activity.


Uranium mining, tendu leaf collectors camping near the water holes created stress/contamination to

the water holes affecting availability of water to the wildlife.

3. Indravati. Chattisgarh

Against financial sanction of Rs 60.90 lakh, Rs 31.48 lakh was spent on water development works.

Construction of tank, stop dam, saucer and hand pumps, earthen dams, water holes, puddle dams,

ponds and repairing of old tanks were not carried out upto targeted numbers resulting in savings of

Rs 29.42 lakh (48.30 per cent).

4. Pench, Kanha, Bandhavgarh and Panna, Madhya Pradesh

Government of India did not provide 69 per cent of the estimated amount for developing water

sources in Panna Tiger Reserve. Even against the sanctioned amount, Panna, Pench, Bandhavgarh

and Kanha Tiger Reserves registered savings of 1 per cent, 5 per cent, 24 per cent and 47 per cent

respectively during 2000-05. The Tiger Reserves did not plan for species specific water management

plan. The Tiger Reserves, except Kanha, did not close water sources periodically to facilitate

rotational grazing and even spatial dispersal of wild animals.

5. Tadoba-Andhari, Maharashtra

Water development works was given low priority as seen from the APO of 2004-05 wherein out of

the demanded funds of Rs 13 lakh only Rs 3 lakh was sanctioned.

6. Buxa, West Bengal

The aspect of sustained availability of water during the lean and dry seasons remained substantially

neglected thereby endangering wildlife conservation.

7. Manas, Assam

There are 25 rivers and streams inside Manas Tiger Reserve located at an average distance of 5 km

and there is no water problem during the monsoon/rainy seasons. During winter and summer

seasons, almost all of these rivers and streams dry up causing water problems inside Manas Tiger

Reserve and the problem is solved by digging water holes as per necessity. This showed that no

specific water management plan was drawn to solve the water problem during dry seasons.

7.2 Herbivores estimation and Grassland Management

Grasslands in reserves are essential for sustaining the prey population of the predators,

notably tigers. Herbivores in Tiger Reserves contribute more than70 per cent of tiger diet

and are an important determinant for presence of tiger. The guidelines of MoEF

(June 2001) also provides for estimation of herbivores annually. The estimation of

prey base was not carried out at Bhadra and Simlipal Tiger Reserves during 2000-05

and was done only once in Valmiki and Periyar Tiger Reserves. In Palamau Tiger

Reserve, though estimation was done every year, the prey predator ratio had not been

assessed. The population of prey species was estimated over a limited area and the

population for the entire area was arrived at proportionately in Kalakad Tiger Reserve.

Test check in audit revealed lack of adequate planning and paucity of necessary

funds for the proper maintenance of grasslands in Tiger Reserves which adversely

affected the food availability for the herbivores. A few cases are cited below.

Tiger Reserves and Remarks

1. Bandipur and Bhadra, Karnataka

The Management Plans of Tiger Reserves at Bandipur and Bhadra for 2000-05 did not set forth any

action plan for grassland management and development to ensure adequate fodder availability for

herbivores. In the absence of estimation of prey species such as deer, sambhar, wild boars, etc. since

1996-97 and 2000-01 at Bandipur and Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuaries respectively, the Forest

Department could not assess the need for grassland development. In fact, there were no grasslands in

the reserves to provide fodder to herbivores. The Management Plans also did not focus on this issue.

2. Bandhavgarh, Panna, Pench and Kanha Tiger Reserves, Madhya Pradesh

The Kanha Tiger Reserve had 7 per cent of the area as grasslands which was to be increased to 15 per cent. On a comparision of the availability of grasslands during 2000-05, it was seen that except in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, three other Tiger Reserves witnessed a decline ranging between 0.001

and 0.05 km2

land availability per herbivore. The decline in availability of grassland was due to increase in the number of livestock in these Tiger Reserves. The livestock population severely causes fodder shortage in the Tiger Reserve which needs to be tackled while planning for grassland and meadows development in the reserves.

7. 3 Removal of lantana and other weeds

The weeds like lantana, parthenium and eupatorium affect the natural regeneration of

forest and grassland as they grow fast, and invade large forest areas. Presence of exotic

vegetation deprives the prey base of fodder and needs to be eradicated to restore

indigenous vegetation. Test check of records revealed that adequate efforts were not

made for removal of lantana and other weeds in many Tiger Reserves.

Name of Tiger

Reserve

1. Kalakad Mundanthurai, Tamil

Nadu

Against Rs 26 lakh sanctioned by the Central Govt. during 2000-05, the Tiger Reserve spent

only

Rs 0.36 lakh during

2000-01.

2. Bandipur,

Karnataka

Tiger Reserves at Bhadra and Bandipur neither assessed the area affected by lantana nor

initiated any action for its removal.

3. Dudhwa including Katarniaghat extension, Uttar

Pradesh

Dudhwa Tiger Reserve identified 1309.93 hectare for removal of lantana/weeds during 2002-

05 but allotted only 158.59 hectare area to UP Forest Corporation for its removal. The area

was yet to be cleared (March 2006) as the work was stopped in compliance with the

instructions issued by the Central Empowered Committee in July 2004 in the light of an order

passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Kanha, Pench, Panna and Bandhavgarh, Madhya

Pradesh

The Tiger Reserves in Madhya Pradesh did not conduct detailed survey during 2000-05 to

assess the total area affected by weeds. Pench Tiger Reserve identified 2110 hectares of weed

affected area but did not demand funds for weed eradication during 2001-03. In Panna Tiger

Reserve the identified area of 1400 hectares (2002-05) remained untreated as the reserve

authorities undertook weed eradication in 472.50 hectares in un-identified areas.

7.4 Preventing destruction of natural forests

7.4.1 Illegal trading in timber

In order to prevent destruction of natural forest which would affect the

ecology, the Honorable Supreme Court of India banned felling of trees. Government

of Tamil Nadu in August 1997 issued an order stipulating that all existing and new

saw mills should be registered with the respective District Forest Officer concerned

giving full details of ownership, capacity, source of timber supply etc., to identify

purchase of illicit timbers owned by them. However, 21 saw mills situated around

Kalakad Tiger Reserve were not registered with the Deputy Director/ Project

Tiger, Ambasamudram. Incidentally, 390 cases of illegal felling of trees were

noticed during 2000-05.

7.4.2 Unauthorised commercial activities

38 saw mills and plywood factories existed within a radius of 20 km before launch

of the Project Tiger in Buxa Tiger Reserve. Only 11 saw mills/plywood factories

had valid license renewed upto 2005-06. As per the West Bengal Forest Produce

Transit Rule 1959, all forest produce entering or leaving saw mills shall be covered

by a transit pass issued by the Forest Authority. The Act also required the Forest

Authorities to make surprise visit to the saw mills frequently and inspect stock of

raw and sawn timber in order to verify that stock of raw timber in each mill was

legally procured. A return of activities was to be submitted by each mill annually to

the Forest Authority. However,audit scrutiny revealed that neither any inspection

was made by the authorities nor the annual returns were obtained from the mills.

No steps were taken to stop the unauthorised business by the mills without license.

7.5 Creation of corridors in Tiger Reserves.

If a wildlife habitat is small, it will have a small population of top carnivores like

tiger. Smaller populations promote inbreeding and therefore remain vulnerable on a

long run due to inadequate genetic diversity. National Wildlife Action Plan

(NWAP) emphasized the need for identification and restoration of linkages and

corridors between wildlife habitats so as to provide gene continuity and

prevention of insular wild animal population by 2004. National Wildlife Action

Plan also contemplated recovery plans of degraded areas in Tiger Reserves by 2004.

PTD stated in March 2006 that a report on the spatial distribution of tigers and

status of habitat connecting corridors in Tiger Reserves in the seventeen tiger

bearing states was completed using satellite data in collaboration with the WII.

Comparative assessment of forest cover in the Tiger Reserves and its outer surround

upto 10 km has also been completed through the Forest Survey of India. However,

PTD admitted that these two reports were not placed in public domain even in

March 2006. Necessary action for restoration would follow the publication of these

reports. Further by 2004, all the identified areas around Tiger Reserves and

corridors were to be declared as ecologically fragile under the Environment

Protection Act, 1986. PTD stated in March 2006 that the identification of the

impact zone around each Tiger Reserve for declaring the same as a buffer would

gain momentum after creation of National Tiger Conservation Authority. Thus,

there has been little progress in identification and restoration of corridors in Tiger

Reserves. It may be mentioned that the need for the establishment of a

network of corridors was recommended in a review report conducted by the

Steering Committee way back in 1985. The delay in the implementation needs to be

viewed in this light. Pertinently during 2000-05, out of the 19 cases of tiger mortality

reported in Madhya Pradesh, 13 were from the Kanha Tiger Reserve. Though all

these deaths were treated as natural, the report on their deaths indicated that

most of them died due to fighting among themselves.

7.6 Eco-development in Tiger Reserves

Eco-development is an integral part of Tiger Reserve development. Through eco-

development activities, the interests of the tiger can be dovetailed with the need of

the people sharing habitat with tigers. Two schemes, Beneficiary Oriented Tribal

Development Scheme (BOTD) funded by Government of India and India Eco-

development Project (IEDP) funded by external sources were operated for eco-

development in the Tiger Reserves. BOTD was merged with Project Tiger in the X

Plan. The X plan provision included Rs 22.50 crore for eco-development around

Tiger Reserves. IEDP provided US$ 67 million during 1996-2004 to address eco-

development concerns in Tiger Reserves.

7.6.1 Eco- development under Project Tiger

Scrutiny of records relating to eco-development in the Tiger Reserves revealed lack

of adequate initiative, shortage of funds in some reserves while funds remained

unspent in others, non-achievement of targets, etc. Some cases are mentioned in the

table below:

Name of the Reserve/State and remarks


In two villages under Melghat Tiger Reserve, providing and erecting Solar Power Operated

Water Supply Scheme was completed at the cost of Rs 5 lakh during 2003-04. The

systems however, remained inoperative due to reduced flow of water for pumping.

Expenditure of Rs 5 lakh incurred thus remained unfruitful.

2. Simlipal,

Orissa

Due to non-utilisation of funds released during 2000-02, the required funds were not

released by Government of India in subsequent year. Further, the target set was not realistic

in view of actual release of fund by the Government. Though there had been target for the

construction of community centre and payment of incentives to the staff and villagers of core

area for meritorious works but no effort was made either for construction of community

centre or payment of incentives to the staff and villagers.

3. Dudhwa, Uttar Pradesh

Against a demand of Rs 2.56 crore submitted during 2000-05, only Rs 80 lakh (31 per

cent) was released by the Government of India. The Tiger Reserve did not demand additional

funds to take up the left over activities like soil conservation, erection of fences, digging of

gamed proof trenches etc. This indicated that either the estimates submitted through the APOs

were inflated or the works proposed were not important. None of the Eco Development

Committees (EDCs) had created the

„eco- development fund‟. The funds received were being spent directly by the

EDCs.

4. Valmiki, Bihar

Eco-development activities of the Tiger Reserve were partially carried out and out of

Central fund of Rs 72.79 lakh, Rs 35.34 lakh remained unspent at the close of March 2005.

5. Corbett, Uttaranchal

Activities carried out under eco-development component of Project Tiger were lagging

behind. Out of Rs 81.20 lakh allocated by Government of India during the period 2001-02

and 2002-03, only Rs 27.25 lakh were utilized. Due to non utilization of funds under eco-development, soil and moisture conservation works could not be completed. As

against sanctioned amount of Rs 5 lakh only Rs 1.37 lakh was utilized. Against physical

target of 2 lakh plants only 50,000 plants were raised. This resulted in non-raising of

sufficient trees on bunds and terrace to check soil erosion. Even eradication of unpalatable

weeds such as Lantana over 100 hectares and planting of palatable grass on 100 hectares of

agriculture land under habitat improvement was not implemented. Against an allocation of Rs

9.50 lakh, Rs 2.42 lakh only were spent. This affected the programme of habitat

improvement.

6. Sunderbans, West Bengal

Sunderbans Tiger Reserve (STR) authorities formed 25 Eco-development Committees (EDCs)/ Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) and 95 Self Help Groups (SHGs) with

the beneficiary villagers for implementation of the scheme of augmentation of livelihood

opportunities and generation of employment potential through supply of inputs for piggery,

goatery, duckery, poultry etc. to the villagers under micro finance movement. SHGs were to

function under the control of EDCs/FPCs. The STR authorities did not indicate the target of

coverage of house holds in APO for

2003-05. However, as per the Performance Report of STR, an expenditure of Rs 30.53 lakh was incurred during 2003-05 towards 818 households through 86 SHGs under

16 EDCs/FPCs. Therefore, 7730 (8548-818) households included in the target were left

out. Further, verification of cheque issue register with cash book revealed that cheques worth

Rs 20.87 lakh only were issued on this account to those 16 EDCs/FPCs against Rs 30.53

lakh recorded in the Performance Report and reported to the MoEF. Exhibition of a

closing balance of Rs 4.47 lakh under this head in the Performance Report indicated that a sum of Rs 9.66 lakh was irregularly withdrawn and spent. The Forest Department replied

in July 2006 that out of total expenditure of Rs 30.53 lakh, Rs 20.87 lakh was directly given

as inputs and Rs 9.65 lakh spent through concerned Range Officers towards holding

meetings, identification of beneficiaries, supervision, execution and field visits by

staff/officers. However, the reply was not supported by Government instructions permitting

expenditure by Range Officers for such purposes nor were documents in support of actual

expenditure furnished to Audit.

7.6.2 Eco-development under IEDP

IEDP was implemented in five Tiger Reserves at Pench (Madhya Pradesh),

Periyar (Kerala), Ranthambore (Rajasthan), Palamau (Jharkhand), Buxa (West

Bengal) and at two National Parks at Gir (Gujarat) and Nagarhole (Karnataka).

While the Project Tiger Directorate (PTD) was responsible for the overall

management of the Project, the responsibility of the field implementation of the

project vested with the participating States. The expenditure at the end of the

project was only US$ 61.02 million against the initial projection of US$ 67 million.

The major components of the project, allocation of funds to these components

as per the initial estimates after mid-term review and the expenditure at the

end of the project were as indicated below:

(US$ in millions)

Sl.

No. Project Component SA

R MT

R EOP

1. Village eco-development to reduce negative impacts of local people on Protected Areas, reduce negative impacts of Protected Areas on local

people, and increase collaboration of local people in conservation efforts

(55 per cent of base cost)

36.

09 35.

00 32.75

2. Improved Protected Area management, through strengthened capacity to conserve bio diversity and increased opportunity for local

participation in Protected Area management activities and decisions

(22 per cent of base cost)

15.

31 15.

00 15.49

3. Development of more effective and extensive support for Protected Area

management and eco-development through (i) environmental education

and visitor management and (ii) impact monitoring and research to

improve understanding of issues and solutions relevant

5.

19 3.

00 2.77

to Protected Area management and interactions between Protected

Areas and people (8 per cent of base cost)

4. Overall project management, including effective project

administration, implementation guidelines, implementation reviews,

policy and strategic framework studies, and publicity (4 per cent of

basic cost)

5.

83 9.

50 9.35

5. Preparation of future biodiversity projects including additional eco-

development biodiversity and ex-situ conservation (3 per cent of base cost)

2.

58 0.

75 0.61

6. Reimbursement of Project Preparation facility 2.

00 0.

05 0.05

TOTAL 67.

00 63.

30 61.02

SAR: Staff Appraisal Report MTR: Mid Term Review EOP: End of Project (initial project cost estimate)

Even though the project identified preparation of future biodiversity projects as one

of its major objectives and earmarked US$ 2.58 million (item no. 5 in the above

table), this activity was dropped after spending US$ 0.61 million (Rs. 2.62 crore

approximately) due to slow progress of the project in the beginning by the

implementing States. Had activity been continued, it would have helped in

developing a pipeline of large-scale biodiversity projects potentially eligible for

future consideration by large financiers such as the Global Environmental

Facility.

7.6.2.1 Village Eco-development

The major component of the IEDP project constituting 55 per cent of its estimated

cost was village eco-development targeted to reduce the negative impacts of local

people on Protected Areas and increase collaboration of locals in conservation

efforts. This component comprised implementation of participatory micro plans

aimed at generating employment potential for the villagers in and around (within

a radius of 2 km) the Protected Areas. Micro plans included supply of inputs like

livestock for poultry, goatery, piggery, dairy, implements for agriculture, van-

rickshaw/rickshaw, and weaving/ sewing machine etc. as per local needs for

generation of employment opportunities.Test check in Audit revealed that various

activities under this component were not carried out efficiently resulting in

avoidable expenditure and non accrual of benefits to the targeted groups. These

included avoidable expenditure of Rs 2.03 crore on LPG, poor achievement of

self employment generation, extra expenditure of Rs 2.04 crore on purchase of bela

stones and extra expenditure over Rs 1.07 crore on the procurement of various

Gir

Buxa

materials as detailed in the table below:

Avoidable expenditure of Rs 2.03 crore on

LPG

Members of Eco-development Committees (EDCs) were to be provided with bio-gas and smokeless chullahs as alternate fuel to reduce the fuel wood collections. Audit observed that

the project authorities provided 10279 LPG connections alongwith stoves to 4329

beneficiaries identified under the micro plans. The cost of these LPG connections was Rs 3.53

crore. As a result of issue of 10279

LPG connections, the project authorities incurred an excess expenditure of Rs 2.03 crore due to

issue of 5950 LPG connections to un-identified persons. The contention of audit was further

supported by the fact that in nine villages, 521 beneficiaries were given LPG connections though not provided in

the micro plans. This indicated that the State Government provided LPG connections to other

than identified beneficiaries also.

Purchase of belastones costing Rs 4.52

crore

Members of EDCs were to be provided with material for repair and construction work. EDCs around the Park procured 40.67 lakh belastones at a cost of Rs 4.52 crore for house repair and

construction of walls to cover 6815 beneficiaries. Audit observed that the purchase of

belastones was made through local purchase at a rate higher than the approved rate of the

State Government from an unauthorized dealer without following the procedure laid down by

the State Forest Department/World Bank. It not only led to an excess expenditure of Rs 2.04

crore but deprived the State Government a royalty of Rs 20.92 lakh and sales taxes amounting to Rs 27.11 lakh as per taxation provisions of the State Government. It further

revealed that belastones supplied to the Forest Department was from illegal mining, which is

an offence and State Government has to take steps to recover a penalty of Rs 2.79 crore from

the supplier.

Self Help

Group

Self Help Groups (SHGs) were to be constituted in each village for improvement of socio-economic condition of poor and helpless people, particularly women. Out of 109 villages

identified, 69 SHGs were constituted in 48 villages. The SHGs were not constituted in

remaining the 61 villages. Thus, the project authorities could not constitute the SHGs in all the

109 villages covered.

Energy

conservation

Fuel-saving ovens costing Rs 10.16 lakh, supplied to 2257 households were lying idle due to

non– utilization by the beneficiaries. Thus, the purpose of providing fuel saving ovens was

defeated as households remained dependent on forests for fuel wood. This indicated that the

park authorities had not conducted proper survey for assessing the requirement of fuel saving ovens.

Pench

Energy conservation

Park authorities identified 5,100 families for installation of biogas plants during 2000-05.

Against this, biogas plants for 1331 families only were installed. Besides, Nutan stoves and

LPG for 1186 and 1600 families respectively were provided without assessing

availability of LPG gas and kerosene in the remote areas. Thus the Park authorities had not assessed the availability of LPG and kerosene to reduce fuel wood consumption.

Fuel for cooking

The Pench management, with a view to reduce demand of fuel by 50 per cent, had procured

8200 pressure cookers during 2000-05 at a cost of Rs 42.68 lakh. The management had distributed 7165 pressure cookers to the members of EDCs. The details of distribution of

remaining 773 pressure cookers costing Rs 3.63 lakh was not available with management.

Thus, the objective of reducing fuel demand to 50 per cent was not fully achieved.

Loan to landless labourers

EDCs provided soft term loan to the tune of Rs 26.03 lakh to 142 beneficiaries who were

landless, to carry out small scale business during the period 2000-05. The loans were

provided out of the funds created from villagers contribution and was repayable to

EDCs in easy monthly instalments. However, Rs 2.01 lakh only was recovered against

loan of Rs 26.03 lakh. The non-recovery of Rs 24.02 lakh deprived the EDCs for

additional community investment under the project.

Nagarhole

Procurement of material

The microplan of Nagarhole provided for procurement of pressure cookers of 5-10 litres capacity, LPG stoves and accessories, roofing materials, solar lanterns and sewing machines

for distribution to EDC members. The Park authorities procured material worth Rs 4.76 crore

locally during 1998-2002 without calling for tender enquiries. The purchases were also split

to avoid approval of competent authorities. Audit pointed out the irregularity in 2001, and

subsequently, the procurement was made as per the procedure of the Forest Department/

World Bank for the same material. On comparison, the rates paid earlier for the same

material were higher than the rates for subsequent supply. The excess expenditure worked

out to Rs 1.07 crore which was mainly on account of violation of purchase procedure. The distribution of the procured material to EDCs members was also not verified. The

EDCs were not subjected to audit by competent authorities even after six years of their

formation.

Overall shortfall in the achievement of objectives and the physical targets of this

component is detailed in Annexure-6.

7.6.2.2 Deficiencies in the preparation of microplans

A test check in audit revealed deficient planning, shortfall in implementation, lack

of monitoring, fraudulent withdrawal and diversion of funds which largely

vitiated the eco-development programme in the Buxa Tiger Reserve while

unauthorized expenditure of Rs 2.67 crore at Pench Tiger Reserve was noticed as

indicated in the table below:

Buxa

The Management Plan identified 61 micro plans to benefit 9494 households in core and

fringe areas without indicating the financial implication. However, park authorities

prepared 58 microplans for

8891 households by engaging seven NGOs. PCCF approved the financial outlay of Rs 10.95 crore proposed for the activities under microplans. Audit observed that 35 EDCs were

formed for implementation of an equal number of microplans covering 3883 households while 23 existing Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) constituted with villagers residing in

the fringe area were associated with implementation of the remaining 23 microplans to

benefit 5008 households. The following deficiencies were noticed.

(i) 603 households though covered in both the Management Plan and APOs were left out

during formulation of micro plans.

(ii) Buxa authorities through their report of December 2005 brought out that inputs valued at Rs 2.82 crore supplied to 2256 households during 2000-05 did not

physically exist with the result that the households could not sustain the benefits of

microplans. The expenditure of Rs 2.82 crore was thus rendered unproductive.

Pench

Activities involving Rs 71.54 lakh were not undertaken in 34 EDCs though included

in the microplans of 2000-01. These EDCs spent Rs 44.69 lakh during the same period on

activities which were not included in the microplans. Subsequently, these EDCs also spent Rs 2.22 crore without preparing microplans during 2001-05. Thus, the purpose of

preparing the microplans was defeated.

7.6.2.3 Population pressure not addressed in microplans

Further it was seen that population pressure was not adequately addressed in IEDP

in the village eco-development component. The indicative plan of IEDP prepared

by the Indian Institute of Public Administration in April 1994 identified a

total population pressure of 15.95 lakh people for the seven selected Protected

Areas. The population pressure criteria fixed for the project however restricted the

impact zone to 2 km of radial distance from the Protected Area boundary

instead of covering the entire impact zone ranging between 5 km and 10 km. The

total population pressure in the seven Protected Areas and the beneficiaries of the

project are depicted in Annexure-7. The IEDP benefited only 4.27 lakh people i.e.,

27 per cent of the total population pressure. This left 73 per cent of „population

pressure‟ of the fringe area unattended. While accepting the observations, PTD

stated in May 2006 that there is a need for delineating a proper impact zone around

Protected Areas instead of an arbitrary radial zone of 2 km for eco-development,

so that all stakeholders in the surrounding villages are addressed to ensure the

desired support for biodiversity conservation. PTD also stated that the States

have been directed to identify this zone around Tiger Reserves for fostering the co-

existence agenda as recommended by the Tiger Task Force of 2005.

7.6.2.4 Village Eco-development Fund

The IEDP guidelines stipulated creation of a village development fund through

collection of 25 per cent contribution from the beneficiary. Fifty per cent of the

funds so created were to be deposited under fixed deposit schemes and remaining

50 per cent was to be utilised by the village eco-development committees. Short

realization, failure to deposit collections into the funds, adhoc utilization of

the funds, fraudulent withdrawals, etc. were noticed as detailed in Annexure-8.

7.6.2.5 Improved Protected Area management

The component “Improved Protected Area Management” under the IEDP project

contemplated augmentation of staff quarters, road improvements, drinking water

facilities, construction of fire/wireless watch towers, transportation, holding

workshops and study tours etc. However, a test check in audit revealed that there

were considerable gaps between the achievements as against the identified targets

in the components under “Improved Protected Area Management” as detailed in

Annexure-6. Illustrative cases of shortfall in achievement in respect of various

activities are indicated below:

Activities Status

Workshop Palamau, Pench, Periyar and Ranthambore did not hold any

workshops as well as study tours under “Improved Protected Area

Management”.

Fire and Wireless towers Construction of fire towers fell short by 80 per cent in Gir and no fire towers

were built at Nagarhole, Periyar and Ranthambore. Construction of wireless

towers at Nagarhole fell short by 45 per cent.

Field equipment No Field Equipment was procured in Palamau, Pench and Periyar

Tiger Reserves.

Survey and Demarcation Survey and Demarcation targets achieved in Gir was 54 per cent whereas no

survey and demarcation was done in case of Pench, Periyar and

Ranthambore Tiger Reserves.

Road work The road works were not completed in Buxa, Nagarhole, Palamau, Periyar and

Ranthambore Tiger Reserves. These fell short of the targets (improvement

of road, access track, bridge path etc.) by 11 per cent, 53 per cent, 29 per cent,

16 per cent and 53 per cent respectively in these Tiger Reserves.

Several irregularities were noticed in the implementation of the improved Protected

Area management activity. This included instances of wasteful expenditure, excess

expenditure, non-recovery of advances from implementing agencies, etc. as

mentioned in the table below:

Pench: Construction of veterinary laboratories, Eco-centre and Hostel

Building

Park authorities constructed three buildings for utilization as permanent field veterinary

laboratories at a cost of Rs 18.35 lakh during 1998-99 to 2002-03. Lab equipment

worth Rs 4 lakh was also purchased. Audit observed that these buildings could not be

put to proper use because neither any pathologist/lab assistant was posted nor

were any required instruments stocked after 2002-03. Thus, the objective of setting

up of the laboratories was not achieved thereby rendering expenditure of Rs 22.35

lakh infructuous. Similarly, the park authorities incurred expenditure of Rs 7.64 lakh

and Rs 14.70 lakh towards construction of eco-centre and hostel building during

2002-03 to 2003-04. Audit observed that both these works were incomplete as of

July 2006.

Buxa: Non recovery of advance

Park authorities paid an advance of Rs 61.24 lakh to the West Bengal Agro

Industries Corporation during 2000-02 for sinking deep tubewells at seven locations

including laying of pipelines at two locations. The Corporation, however, sunk four

tubewells only at four locations and laid pipeline at one location by April 2001 at a

cost of Rs 44.43 lakh, leaving a balance of Rs 16.81 lakh. Park authorities also paid

an advance of Rs 21.00 lakh to West Bengal Forest Development Corporation in

March 2002 towards construction of three suspension bridges over rivers in the Tiger

Reserve. The Corporation could construct only one bridge in July 2002 at a cost of

Rs 11.80 lakh. The unspent balance of Rs 26.01 lakh (Rs. 16.81 lakh plus Rs 9.20

lakh) in the above two cases was not refunded to the Buxa

Tiger Reserve authorities as of March 2006. Buxa Tiger Reserve authorities also

made no efforts to recover the amount. Thus, an amount of Rs 26.01 lakh remained

to be recovered even after four years.

Palamau: Excess expenditure of Rs 31.11 lakh

Park authorities had undertaken soil conservation work for 128 hectares in 2002-03

and for

1074 hectares in 2002-04. The above work was carried out under “Improved Protected

Area Management” and the discretionary fund respectively. Audit observed that the

contour trenches were made in 1202 ha utilizing 90,150 mandays instead of 41,999

mandays @ Rs 64.61 per manday as per orders issued by Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand in February 2003. The excess deployment of 48,151

mandays had resulted in an excess expenditure of Rs 31.11 lakh due to non adherence of

orders of the PCCF.

Gir: Baseline Mapping

The Staff Appraisal Report provided for baseline mapping of each of the Protected

Areas under the IEDP. Project authorities assigned the consultancy work for base line

mapping to Space Applications Centre (SAC), Ahmedabad in February 1998 at an

estimated cost of Rs 17.25 lakh. The consultancy work was to complete by August

1999. The Forest and Environment Department (FED) rejected the interim report

furnished in August 1998 as the maps were incomplete and very sketchy. This led to

serious differences of opinion between SAC and FED. FED returned all the 17 maps

prepared by SAC and asked SAC in August

2001, not to prepare the final report. Equipment costing Rs 4.70 lakh purchased by

SAC were not returned to FED. The Conservator of Forests agreed that in real

terms for Gir Protected Area Management the achievement was nil. Thus, the

expenditure of Rs 17.25 lakh incurred on baseline mapping was a waste.

7.6.2.6 Impact Monitoring and Research

The project contemplated research to improve understanding of issues and

solutions relevant to Protected Area management. However, test check in Audit

revealed that there were no significant research activities in the following

reserves.

Rantha

mbore

An amount of Rs 10 lakh was earmarked in APO of the project of 2002-03 for

carrying out 10 research activities. However, the Tiger Reserve did not undertake

any research activity till the completion of the project i.e. 30 June 2004.

Periyar

The World Bank reduced the provision of Rs 2.76 crore made at SAR stage to Rs

1.86 crore at MTR stage. However an expenditure of Rs 1.14 crore was

incurred thereby leaving Rs 72 lakh unutilised against MTR provision.

7.7 Research and Development initiatives in Project Tiger

The report of 1972 on Project Tiger accorded importance to research

programmes aimed at devising sound management practices. The basic need

conceived was to collect information about inter-relationship between

predators, their prey and their habitat. The effect of habitat manipulation and biotic

influence on reproduction, dispersal and population dynamics of the prey

animals, and in turn their relationship with the predators were required to be

scientifically investigated for each vegetation type and the information derived

was to be used to guide the management practices. Further, the scientific staff

was required to keep a permanent record of pathological observations. Every case of

unnatural death was to be utilized for collection of samples to be used for laboratory

investigation of pathogens. PTD stated in March 2006 that the monitoring of

changes in flora and fauna through field plots in Tiger Reserves could not be

continued for want of regular posts of research officers in Tiger Reserves. PTD

further stated that considerable research data have been generated from the Tiger

Reserves and the knowledge on tiger has increased manifold since 1973. A test

check in audit revealed that while there were no research facilities at Indravati,

Palamau, Bandipur, Corbett, Manas, Valmiki and Ranthambore Tiger Reserves,

research activities were not carried out in Namdapha, Sunderbans and Sariska

Tiger Reserves despite having research facilities, as indicated in Annexure-9.

Recommendations

Priority should be accorded in the Tiger Reserves for eradication of weeds,

availability of grasslands and abundant water resources to ensure sustenance of tiger

population.

The network of corridors for connecting the Tiger Reserves with the Protected

Areas and other forest areas should be established without further delay.

Government should lay down a clear-cut agenda for co-existence by

addressing the needs of the people sharing habitat with tigers and at the same time

ensuring that eco-sensitive areas are protected from human disturbances, without

diluting the conservation efforts.

PTD should exercise control over eco-development projects, both funded internally

and aided by external agencies.

8. Protection of tigers

Data available at Project Tiger Directorate indicate that out of 173 deaths of tigers

during 1999-2004, 83 were due to poaching. Out of the remaining, 60 deaths were

due to natural causes, 13 due to electrocution, 7 due to poisoning and 10 due to

infighting. Thus, loss of tiger life due to poaching, poisoning, and electrocution

works out to 103, which accounts for more than 60 per cent of the tiger deaths. The

accuracy of the data is doubtful, as an independent survey had reported 200 tiger

deaths during the same period of which 121 were due to poaching. However, both

statistics indicate that the tiger deaths due to poaching far outweigh deaths from

natural causes. The independent survey further reported that an annual average

poaching figure of 22 tigers over a period of 6 years was alarming. These figures

indicate failure of PTD and the States to take adequate stringent measures for

preservation of tiger. PTD admitted in March 2006 that though it had issued

detailed guidelines and instructions in June 2002 to the States for protection of

tigers and wild animals, these were not implemented effectively and it was

helpless in the enforcement of its own guidelines due to the absence of any statutory

empowerment. PTD further stated that this situation is being remedied with the

creation of National Tiger Conservation Authority with adequate statutory backing.

8.1 Measures to combat poaching

8.1.1 Absence of measures to combat poaching in States

Several cases of inaction in the face of tiger poaching in the Tiger Reserves over

2000-2005 were noticed in audit. Some symptomatic cases are given in the table

below. The cases indicate lack of intelligence networking and monitoring failure at

the field level. No special anti-poaching drive or any stringent action except to

register the cases in the offence register was taken.

Name of States and Tiger Reserves

1. Sariska, Rajasthan

A test check in audit revealed that out of the 46 cases of poaching registered during

2000-

05 in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, 13 were tiger cases. However the poaching cases

were registered belatedly after seven to 48 months.

2. Ranthambore, Rajasthan

Special strike force as provided in the management plan of Ranthambore Tiger

Reserve were not created. The poaching cases in Ranthambore Tiger Reserve

increased from 15 in 2002 to 20 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 26 in 2005. The increasing

trend in the poaching cases indicated lack of effectiveness of the action taken by

the reserve authorities to control poaching. Similarly, out of the 133 cases of

poaching registered till March 2005 in the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve only 72 cases

were disposed of during 2000-05.

3. Dudhwa, UP

Eight cases of poaching of tigers were reported from Dudhwa Tiger Reserve

including Katarniaghat during 2000-05. All the cases were pending disposal in

Courts as of March 2005.

4. Bandipur, Karnataka

An attempted case of tiger poaching was reported by a tourist in Antharsanthe

Range of Nagarhole extension of Bandipur Tiger Reserve to the forest staff where

metal traps had been laid by 46 poachers hailing from Madhya Pradesh, the tiger

was rescued and rehabilitated in Mysore Zoo. This indicated the inherent weakness

in protection measures to control poaching in these Reserves. The death of a tiger in

August 2004, aged about 6 to 7 years was treated as natural death at Bandipur Tiger

Reserve. The post mortem report revealed evidence of injury and absence of nails,

which indicated that it was a case of poaching. However, the Department did not

investigate this.

8.1.2 Absence of Communication Network

Communication is the key to protection from fires, poaching, timber felling,

grazing, encroachments and other illegal activities. As many as 9 Tiger

Reserves, namely - Manas, Valmiki, Indravati, Melghat, Pench (Maharashtra),

Tadoba-Andhari, Periyar, Sariska and Ranthambore Tiger Reserves were not

equipped with adequate means of communication to counter illegal activities.

In Manas Tiger Reserve, 4 ranges, 14 beats and 2 check posts were

functioning without wireless network. In Manas the percentage of damaged

wireless sets was 78.26. Manas Tiger Reserve procured 87 wireless sets

during 2000-01 of which 50 wireless sets became non-functional in 2002-03

and 22 sets were damaged in 2003- 04. Thus, 72 sets became unserviceable

within 3-4 years of procurement. The Tiger Reserve did not investigate the

large scale damages to ascertain the reasons.

In Valmiki Tiger Reserve only 11 wireless stations were provided to 20 beats and

5 check posts. Further during 1998-99, Valmiki Tiger Reserve procured 77

wireless handsets for Rs 7.79 lakh to strengthen the communication network. Of

these, only 27 sets were distributed among ranges as of March 2006, while

the remaining 50 handsets were lying unutilized in the Divisional Office.

Valmiki Tiger Reserve also did not utilize Rs 3.20 lakh provided during 2004-

05 for procurement of 40 mobile sets.

In Periyar Tiger Reserve, out of 19 Entry points and 21 beats, 16 entry points

and 3 beats were functioning without wireless sets.

In Sariska Tiger Reserve, 33 out of 75 beats were being operated without

wireless hand sets.

Indravati Tiger Reserve had no wireless network.

The Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve could not utilize the

available communication/wireless network as per the advice of police

authorities due to extremist activities in the area and no persuasive action

was taken by the forest authorities as of March 2006.

The State-wise status of wireless systems, stations and handsets lying in

damaged and unserviceable condition as on 31 March 2005 was as under :

Name of the Tiger

Reserve/

State

Total

number of

wireless

sets/system

s available

Wireless sets/systems lying in Percenta

ge damage

d

conditio

n

unserviceable

condition

Nagarjunsagar, Andhra Pradesh 9

2 7

2 72 78.26

Bandhavgarh, Madhya Pradesh N

A 3

5 35 -

Periyar, Kerala 1

1

4

2

4 - 21.05

Sariska, Rajasthan 1

9

2

8

1 81 42.19

Dudhwa, Uttar Pradesh 2

3

4

1

2

3

- 52.56

Corbett, Uttaranchal 3

2

9

1

4

0

- 42.55

TOT

AL 9

6

1

4

7

5

188 49.42

49 per cent of total wireless systems available with the 6 States were lying in

damaged condition. Out of 475 damaged wireless systems, 188 were unserviceable

as on March 2005.

8.1.3 Arms and ammunition

The forest staff is required to be armed with sophisticated weapons and other

equipment to combat poaching and illicit trade effectively. Arms and

ammunition were inadequate in 12 Tiger Reserves namely Namdapha,

Indravati, Bandipur,Tadoba-Andhari, Melghat, Ranthambore, Sariska, Simlipal,

Kanha, Bandhavgarh, Manas and Sunderbans. While arms were insufficient in

some reserves, in others discrepancies/shortages in ammunition were noticed.

Some specific cases seen in audit are given below.

In Namdapha, Kanha, Bandhavgarh, Tadoba-Andhari, Melghat, Indravati and

Simlipal Tiger Reserves the forest guards were not equipped with

adequate arms and ammunition. Indravati Tiger Reserve had only 4 guns to

protect the forest area of 2799.086 sq. km.

Against the requirement of 123 and 191 weapons in Bandipur Tiger Reserve

and its Nagarhole extension, only 31 and 21 weapons respectively were

available. In Sariska Tiger Reserve, only seven weapons were available

against the requirement of 26 weapons. Out of these seven, two weapons were

lying in non-functional condition (since August 2002 and September 2003). In

Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, out of 22 weapons purchased till 1998, only 9 were

being utilized as 7 were non-functional since 1999 and the remaining 6 were not

in use.

In Manas Tiger Reserve, there was a discrepancy/shortage of 37 weapons and

2111 cartridges as per the Register of Arms and Ammunition. The stock record

maintained by Sunderbans and Buxa Tiger Reserves depicted

discrepancy/shortage of 5 and 83 weapons respectively upto 2004-05. The

Tiger Reserve Management did not conduct any investigation of missing

weapons in Buxa and Sunderbans Tiger Reserves.

The authorities in Nagarjunsagar and Palamau Tiger Reserves withdrew the

arms and ammunition from field staff due to risk/fear of snatching by

extremists/naxals.

Two weapons were short out of 33 weapons available in Bandipur Tiger

Reserve. In Corbett Tiger Reserve, out of 10 missing weapons, 7 were looted

and 3 weapons deposited with Police Station in connection with offence cases.

Besides availability of arms and ammunition, adequate training for their use is

essential. As per the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016), the States should

have adequately trained personnel to man all positions right from Park Director

down to forest guards. It was noticed that nine Tiger Reserves, namely,

Manas, Periyar, Tadoba-Andhari, Pench (Maharashtra), Melghat, Kanha, Pench

(Madhya Pradesh), Bandhavgarh and Panna Tiger Reserves did not provide training

to their staff on regular/periodic basis. In Manas Tiger Reserve, the training

imparted to staff was inadequate as it did not cover the areas of field craft,

obstacle crossing and unarmed combat. The weapon training was limited to .315

rifles only. In Periyar Tiger Reserve, the system of pre-service training was not

prevalent and only 27 forest guards out of 86 were imparted training during 2000-

2005.

8.1.4 Deficiencies in creation of strike forces/intelligence network

The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-16) emphasised the importance of

reorganizing forest staff into viable units and arming them with sophisticated

weapons and other equipment; provision of secret funds to assist the State

Governments for intelligence gathering in cases of illegal trade and seizure of

wildlife species and their products; strengthening the outreach of all

enforcement agencies especially police, paramilitary forces, customs, coast guards,

intelligence agencies and the like through meetings and training programmes. The

Project Directorate had also from time to time issued directives towards

protection initiatives in Tiger Reserves which included constitution of squads and

special instructions to squads/parties covering several aspects. While funds were

not allocated for creation of strike force/ intelligence network in some reserves, in

others they were not created though funds were available. Besides, wildlife staff in

some States was not provided status on par with police required to combat wildlife

crime. Cases noticed in audit are given below:

Though Rs 51.40 lakh and Rs 91.61 lakh were sanctioned for the creation of strike

force at Manas and Simlipal Tiger Reserves respectively, no action was taken

by these reserves for creation of strike force. Similarly, in the case of Melghat,

Tadoba-Andhari, Pench (Maharashtra), Kanha, Bandhavgarh and Periyar Tiger

Reserves, neither were any strike forces created nor any funds allocated for the

same.

No system of intelligence network was in place in Bandipur, Melghat, Tadoba-

Andhari, Kanha, Panna, Bandhavgarh, Sunderbans, Sariska and Ranthambore Tiger

Reserves. No provision of „secret funds‟ was made in Bandipur, Melghat, Pench,

Tadoba-Andhari and Dudhwa Tiger Reserves.

Though National Wildlife Action Plan emphasised the need for the delegation of

status to the Forestry and Wildlife personnel status at par with police, this

status was not delegated to the Forestry and Wildlife personnel by many states viz.

Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal etc.

Though National Wildlife Action Plan envisaged setting up of Regional

Wildlife Forensic Labs by 2003, these were not set up in the States like Jharkhand,

Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttaranchal, Bihar and Orissa.

8.1.5 Non implementation of measures to combat wildlife crime

Subramanian Committee constituted by MoEF in 1994 and National Wildlife

Action Plan suggested various measures to streamline enforcement mechanism to

control wildlife crime. These proposals included establishment of Regional Forensic

labs even at State level, security of international borders with Nepal, Bhutan,

Myanmar and Bangladesh and coastal waters to prevent smuggling of wild life, etc.

The committee also recommended setting up of National Wildlife Crime Cell

(NWCC) with links to similar units at the State level, a professional set-up for

intelligence gathering on wildlife criminals for effective and timely actions

on priority basis and effective amelioration of man-animal conflicts. National

Wildlife Action Plan envisaged existence of effective systems and practices on

these issues by 2003. However, even as of March 2006, many of these proposals

were yet to be implemented or were under various stages of implementation.

The Subramanian Committee as well as National Wildlife Action Plan had

emphasized the need for setting up special courts for the expeditious disposal of

cases of forest offences and cases registered under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

However, a test check in audit revealed that some States had not set up such courts

resulting in large pendency of cases in these States. These were Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West

Bengal.

PTD stated in March 2006 that the proposal for National Wildlife Crime

Control Bureau (NWCCB) is being recast as per the advice of the Union

Ministry for Law and Justice. While claiming that it is closely liaising with WII and

the States for implementing the actions indicated in National Wildlife Action Plan,

PTD admitted that its directives and advisories very often were not honoured by

States and the situation is being redressed by the creation of National Tiger

Conservation Authority. Inordinate delay in the creation of NWCCB and

achievement of other milestones in the National Wildlife Action Plan has affected

prevention of wildlife crimes.

8.2 Deficiencies in fire protection in the Tiger Reserves

Forest fire kills valuable fodder species and encourages lantana. Excessive spread

of lantana depletes the fodder resources for the herbivores and in turn impacts

carnivores like tiger, too. Fires affect habitat quality of reserves for tigers as well as

other supporting wildlife. Hence, it is necessary to prevent fires and quickly

extinguish fire when they occur in the reserves. Forest fires are controlled through

fire lines. Fire line is a pathway created in the forest to surround an area that is

burning or is scheduled to be burnt in order to prevent the fire from spreading. Fire

towers are erected in forests to observe the endangered area prone to forest fire.

MoEF in its guidelines in July 2000 on prevention and control of forest fire

stipulated that forest fire protection be a priority item for budget allocation. Audit

noticed that many Tiger Reserves were affected by forest fire during 2000-05 due to

improper maintenance of fire lines/ towers, inadequate fire lines and non

supply of fire fighting equipment as detailed in the Annexure-10. Palamau,

Bandipur, Kanha, Panna, Melghat, Tadoba-Andhari, Pench (Maharashtra),

Simlipal, Periyar, Kalakad Mundanthurai and Buxa Tiger Reserves were some

of the worst affected reserves due to fire during 2000-05.

8.3 Inadequate patrolling in Tiger Reserves

8.3.1 Area norms of patrolling camps not adhered to

Patrolling is integral to ensuring protection and conservation of wildlife in the

reserves. Responsibility of securing the Protected Areas by and large rests with

the forest guards and foresters as their duties include patrolling and watching,

camping at chowkis to facilitate patrolling deep inside the forests, carrying out anti-

poaching raids and maintaining fire lines. PTD in June 2002 instructed the Chief

Wildlife Wardens that an area of 25-30 km2 should be brought under the

jurisdiction of each patrolling camp and chowki in the Tiger Reserves to ensure

desired amount of legwork by beat guard and camp followers posted in such

patrolling camps/chowkis. At the national level, 28 Tiger Reserves were covered by

1070 patrolling camps and chowkis, which indicate coverage of about 35 km2

under each camp. However, wide divergences in coverage were noticed

among the various Tiger Reserves. While in the Tiger Reserves at Panna, Corbett

and Kanha, patrolling camp/chowki existed for every 10.04 km2, 10.53 km2

and 11.31 km2 respectively, only one patrolling camp existed in Kalakad

Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve for its entire area of 800 km2. In Nagarjunsagar,

Namdapha, Valmiki and Sunderbans Tiger Reserves the average area under each

patrolling camp and chowki was as large as 713.60 sq km, 397 km2, 120 km2 and

129.25 km2 respectively. The table given below gives the area covered in the

Tiger Reserves by the patrolling camps/chowki.

Illustrative cases where the coverage of area

by a patrolling camp/chowki is better than

the prescribed norm (25-30 sq. km)

Illustrative cases where the coverage of area by a

patrolling camp/chowki is poorer than the

prescribed norm (25-30 sq. km)

S

l.

N

o

.

Name

of

Tiger

Reser

ve

To

tal

are

a

(sq

. k

m) ♣

Ch

ow

kis

Are

a C

ov

ered

by

ea

ch P

C

/ch

ow

kis

S

l.

N

o

.

Name of

Tiger

Reser

ve

To

tal

are

a

(sq

. k

m)

No

. o

f P

C/

Ch

ow

kis

Are

a c

ov

ered

by

ea

ch

PC

/ch

ow

kis

1

. Corbett 131

6 125 10.53 1

. Simlipal 2750 4

6 59.78

2

. Kanha 194

5 172 11.31 2

. Sunderbans 2585 2

0 129.25

3

. Melghat 167

7 9

0 18.63 3

. Buxa 759 8 94.88

4

. Palamau 102

6 6

5 15.78 4

. Indravati 2799 1

1 254.45

5

. Pench (Mad

ya

Prade

sh)

75

8 4

1 18.49 5

. Nagarjunsagar 3568 5 713.60

6

. Panna 54

2 5

4 10.04 6

. Namdapha 1985 8 248.13

7

. Bhadra 49

2 2

6 18.92 7

. Kalakad

Mundanthurai 800 1 800.00

8

. Valmiki 840 8 105.00

9

. Tado

ba-

Andh

ari

620 1

4 44.29

1

0. Dampha 500 3 166.67

1

1. Bandipur 1509 3

1 48.68

8.3.2 Lack of guards at patrolling camps

In case of Corbett, Kanha and Bandipur Tiger Reserves, though there existed 125,

172 and 31 patrolling chowkis, only 106, 148 and 47 forest guards were available.

The patrolling camps in Kanha and Pench (Madhya Pradesh) were operated by

unskilled labourers. PTD admitted in March 2006 that the protection

measures in the Tiger Reserves were adversely affected due to shortage of

manpower and the situation has not improved despite addressing the States at

various levels. PTD further stated that the National Tiger Conservation Authority

would address the issue by providing statutory provision in the Memorandum

of Understanding with the project States.

8.3.3 Lack of manpower norms

The quality of protection in a Tiger Reserve will depend upon the quality of its

manpower. PTD has not determined norms for the field staff in the Tiger

Reserves except that an area of 25-30 km2 should be under the jurisdiction of each

patrolling camp and chowki. PTD stated in March 2006 that it is difficult to fix a

uniform normative standard for all Tiger Reserves and this has to be worked out by

the States on a site specific basis.

8.3.3.1 Forest guards and foresters

The availability of manpower and patrolling camps/ chowkis in the Tiger Reserves

as of March 2005 is indicated in Annexure-11. On an average while a forest guard

covers an area of 14.94 km2, a forester covers an area of 53.29 km2 . Besides, the

statistics indicate huge variation in the area covered by the forest guard and the

forester in different Tiger Reserves. While Buxa Tiger Reserve had a forest guard for

every 3.63 km2, Namdapha Tiger Reserve had only one forest guard for every

330.83 km2. Similarly, Pench (Maharashtra) Tiger Reserve with an area of only 257

km2 and only 14 tigers had 47 forest guards, Sunderbans Tiger Reserve with an area

of 2585 km 2 and 245 tigers had only 39 forest guards. The area covered by a

forester in Bandipur, Sunderban, Simlipal, Namdapha, Indravati and Dampa Tiger

Reserves were in the range of 110 and 467 km2 as against the national average of

53.29 km2. Huge vacancies ranging between 43 to 62 per cent existed in the cadre

of forest guards and watchers in Sunderbans, Namdapha, Bandipur, Simlipal,

Palamau and Indravati reserves while there was surplus staff at Bandhavgarh, and

Bori-Satpura Tiger Reserves. At Melghat, Valmiki, Tadoba-Andhari, Manas and

Indravati Tiger Reserves, vacancies in foresters cadre were in the range of 38.89 to

53.85 per cent. PTD admitted in March 2006 that the staff situation in Tiger

Reserves were below the desired level. It may be emphasised though that

the onus rests with PTD to fix the manpower norms of frontline staff in each Tiger

Reserve with due consideration to the specific eco-systems/habitats in consultation

with the concerned State Governments.

8.3.3.2 Deployment of aged staff in frontline duties in Tiger Reserves

The average age recommended by WII for frontline forest staff is 18-35 years. It was

seen that the average age of the forest guards posted in the reserves was 43 years and

that of foresters was 47 years (Annexure-11). At Palamau, Ranthambore, Simlipal

and Pench (Maharashtra) Tiger Reserves, the average age of a forest guard was in

the range of 50 to 53 years. The forester‟s average age was above 50 years in Kanha,

Palamau, Ranthambore, Simlipal, Sariska, Indravati, Dudhwa, Pench (Madhya

Pradesh), Tadoba-Andhari, Satpura and Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserves.

Deployment of aged forest guards and foresters would undermine conservation and

protection efforts in the reserves.

8.4 Structural and organisational weakness at Project Tiger Directorate

The mandate of PTD included overall control of the project implementation under

the guidance of the Steering Committee, scrutiny of Annual Plan of Operations,

budgetary sanctions, sanction of major works, review of progress of

implementation and evaluation of Project Tiger in co-ordination with the

concerned State Government. In addition, co-ordination with international

organizations, voluntary bodies and all administrative matters relating to

Project Tiger, and implementation of externally aided projects are other

important items of work with the Project Directorate.

The Special Task Force for Project Tiger 1972 contemplated the need for

creation of 38 posts including a Director, two Deputy Directors, a post of Joint

Director, and posts of Naturalists, Research Officers etc. for monitoring and

control of the nine Tiger Reserves created initially. However, even after

establishment of 28 Tiger Reserves, MoEF restricted the sanctioned strength of

PTD at 13 only. PTD was actually functioning with only seven officials including

the Director and the Joint Director as of March 2006. The evaluation of Project

Tiger (1996) subsequent to recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee

found that one of the most serious shortcomings of Project Tiger has been the puny

sized PTD at New Delhi. It held that each Tiger Reserve has its own attributes and

problems, which need to be dealt with individually and therefore PTD must have a

detailed planning wing for preparing management plans for each Tiger Reserve.

However even after ten years, MoEF has not taken any action to strengthen PTD.

The effect of low staffing at the apex was reflected in non-adherence to guidelines

and procedures while creating new Tiger Reserves, lack of monitoring of the MPs

and watching compliance to various instructions issued by PTD to the States

where the conservation activities suffered most.

Sariska Tiger Reserve presents a typical case of the ineffectiveness of PTD. Though

disturbing reports were received way back in 1996, effective steps were not taken by

the PTD to remedy the situation. There was no information regarding poaching of

tigers in the Reserve at PTD. Though the incidence of tiger sighting by the staff at

Sariska had reduced to nil by 2002 in comparison to 17 sightings reported in 1998,

the reserve continued to report to the PTD of the existence of 17 to 27 tigers in the

Reserve during 1998-2004 as indicated below.

Ye

ar 199

8 199

9 200

0 200

1 200

2 200

3 200

4 Tiger Sighting by staff 1

7 6 5 3 0 1 0

Tiger population as per annual

estimates 2

4 2

6 2

6 2

6 2

7 2

6 1

7

While PTD reported decline in poaching incidences during 2003-05 later reports of

2005 by CBI indicated extinction of tigers in Sariska and serious problems in

Ranthambore. This raises serious doubts on the integrity of data available at PTD.

PTD stated in March 2006 that since the field implementation of Project Tiger was

done by the States it could not directly fix accountability on State

Government officials. However, PTD admitted in March 2006 that the estimated

figures of tiger reported by the Reserves could not be construed as realistic and

attributed it to the shortcomings prevalent in the tiger estimation method.

8.5 Prevention of Illegal trade in wildlife

Smuggling of wildlife parts and derivatives in and around Protected Areas

presents a low risk lucrative trade opportunity. Smuggling acts as an incentive for

poaching. Tiger bone among other items has a great value in international illegal

wildlife trade. This calls for special measures for effective control of illegal trade to

protect wildlife. The Wildlife Division of MoEF is the nodal agency for

coordinating and initiating measures for the prevention of illegal wildlife trade.

Four Regional Wildlife Offices headed by Deputy Directors (RDD) at Delhi,

Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai along with 3 sub-regional offices at Guwahati,

Amritsar and Cochin operated under the Wildlife Division of MoEF as of

March 2006. The Regional Offices assist the State authorities in enforcement of

provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972. They conduct investigations

of the offences detected either by their staff or by the State authorities; assist the

customs authorities in checking and identification of species at the time of export to

prevent unauthorized trade and visit the National Parks, Sanctuaries and Zoos in

the respective jurisdiction to evaluate their functioning. The Regional Offices also

assist in implementation of the provisions of the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

8.5.1 Lack of adequate manpower in the Regional Wildlife Offices

The four Regional Offices functioned with total staff strength of 11

(Northern), 9 (Western), 11(Southern) and 12 (Eastern) as on March 2006.

Evidently the staff strength was inadequate for proper discharge of

multifarious duties assigned to RDDs. The staff position at the sub-regional offices

(SRO) was also critical. RDD, Eastern Region had a Sub Regional Office (SRO)

at Guwahati. The SRO started functioning with effect from 08 February 1993 with

one Assistant Director, one Wildlife Inspector, and one Technical Assistant.

However, the post of Assistant Director was vacant between October 1997 and

December 2003 which was subsequently abolished in January 2004. At present the

SRO was running only with one Technical Assistant, one LDC and a driver.

During the period 2000-05, SRO, Guwahati detected/booked only two offence

cases under the Wildlife Protection Act,1972. MoEF stated in May 2006 that the

need for augmentation of manpower and logistics has been considered and

included in the proposed National Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (NWCCB).

The reply needs to be viewed against the fact that the 1994 Subramanian

Committee on prevention of illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products had

recommended its creation which has been inordinately delayed. Pertinently,

considering the inadequate staff position and the increasing incidents of poaching

and a spurt in wildlife crimes due to porous borders, the Working Group on Wildlife

Sector of MoEF for the X Plan also reported that all the four RDDs needs to be

strengthened. It further advocated that a Wildlife Crime Cell at the Centre was

to be created for intelligence gathering and coordination with other enforcement

agencies.

8.5.2 Lack of training of staff

The Committee on Prevention of Illegal Trade in Wildlife and Wildlife

Products recommended in August 1994 that field staff, especially the Wildlife

Inspectors were to be trained in unarmed combat, tracking, and preservation of the

scene of crime as well as handling and forwarding of scientific material evidence to the authorities without damaging them. However, this recommendation was not implemented by RDD, Southern Region, on the ground that the recruitment rules did not prescribe any training and further contended

that they would be fine tuned under the guidance of the supervisory officers. MoEF

stated in May 2006 that the observation was noted for further examination and

corrective action.

8.5.3 Functioning of RDDs

8.5.3.1 Inadequacy of Inspectors

RDDs handle consignments received at entry or exit points as well as from customs

department. The volume of consignments handled by RDDs was very large. RDD,

Northern Region handled 17852 consignments, RDD, Southern Region 2763

consignments, RDD, Western Region 21740 consignments and RDD, Eastern

Region 8601 consignments over 2000-2005. However, the post of Inspector at RDD

Southern Region remained vacant from September 2002 and in the other RDDs

there were only one Inspector or two to undertake random check of consignments.

8.5.3.2 Failure to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA),

1972

Section 50 of the WPA, 1972 empowers the RDDs to investigate offence cases

detected by them and to book the offenders. Section 51 provides for penalties for

offences committed and Section 55 empowers RDDs to lodge complaints in the

courts for cognizable offences. A test check in audit revealed that the RDDs had

detected 502 offence cases during the period 2000-05 for violation of the Wild Life

Protection Act 1972, the Export Import (EXIM) Policy and CITES. These cases

were not pursued to any logical conclusion as given below :

RDD Cases

detecte

d

Classification

of Cases Remarks

Eastern Region 328 EXIM/

CITES/

WPA(328)

RDD, Eastern Region failed to file even a single case

in the court. Only seven items out of 32 items of

seized materials were kept in their custody due to

non-availability of storage facilities for seized materials and inadequate staff, as stated by RDD,

Eastern Region.

Western

Region 148 EXIM/CITE

S (95),

WPA(53)

Only 7 cases pertaining to EXIM were settled while

none of the 53 cases of raids was settled. Except 71

offence cases worth US$ 19353 and Rs 4.39 crores, no other details were made available to Audit.

The details of seizures in

484 cases upto 1999-2000 were not on record.

Southern

Region 26 WPA(26) Out of 5 cases pursued by the RDD, four cases were

pending finalization. The RDD was not aware of

the status of 17 cases handed over to the State Forest

Authorities.

Total 502

MoEF stated in May 2006 that the protection of Wildlife is a subject under the

concurrent list and accordingly the protection machinery also exists in each State

with the Chief Wildlife Warden as a statutory authority, independently deriving

powers from the Wildlife Protection Act. It further stated that the law recognizes

only the State Wildlife machinery for taking the cases to their logical

conclusion. However due to poor coordination with State Forest Authorities,

Customs and courts, most of the cases detected were not pursued.

8.5.3.3 Inadequate coverage of airport, seaport, land border and check

posts

The duties and responsibilities of RDDs required them to assist and advise the

customs authorities in the checking and identification of flora, fauna and their

derivatives to ascertain their exportability/importability. However, a test check

revealed that the mechanism for regular deployment at the points prone to illegal

trade in wildlife were very inadequate as depicted below.

RDDs

Remarks

Southern

Region

Southern Region had 12 exit points but only two points viz., Chennai and Kochi are

monitored by regular inspection. While only one Inspector caters to the needs of 12

Container Freight Stations, 1 Dock, 1 Air Cargo Complex and 2 Foreign Post Offices at

Chennai, the lone Assistant Director discharges the functions of Wildlife Inspector at

Kochi. One post of Wildlife Inspector which was temporarily transferred in 1978 for a

short duration was not restored even after more than 25 years. Other ten exit points

remained unmanned. Thus it is imperative that ten exit points not hitherto monitored be

manned by adequate staff. Although the need for posting officers at the International

Air Port was emphasized in the Steering Committee Meeting of Project Elephant held in

the year 2002, these exit points remained unattended. Since 90 per cent of the products

of flora and fauna of wild origin are prone to smuggling out of India as indicated in the

Report of the Committee on Prevention of Illegal Trade in Wildlife of

1984, the matter of non monitoring of ten exit points needs to be addressed on priority

basis.

Western Region

Western Region had 36 customs exit/entry and other checking points. In Mumbai alone,

there were 26 exit/entry points. Two Wildlife Inspectors were stationed at different

customs exits/entry points in Mumbai to examine the exports/imports cargos. The

number of consignments increased steadily from 3741 in 2000-01 to 4953 in 2004-05,

but the men- in-position remained static for over 26 years. Moreover, prescribed norms

for deployment of manpower was not available on the records of RDD Western Region,

Mumbai. In some instances, office staff like UDC, Stenographer, was involved in the

raids, though, it was not falling within the purview of their job profile.

Northern

Region

Northern Region had 10 customs points under their jurisdiction. Out of these, only

one customs point namely IGI, Air Cargo, New Delhi was being regularly attended and

the other points were being attended on the basis of sealed samples forwarded by the

customs authorities. Scientific methods for selection of consignments were not in place.

RDD, Northern Region stated that the officials of their office made random visits to the

other nine points as and when required and they were always in touch with customs

officer on the other points. The contention of RDD, Northern Region was not tenable as

the regular but not intermittent deployment at the remaining nine points would have

minimized the scope for violation of the provisions of WPA 1972, CITES and EXIM

policy as the export/ import consignments at these points could have remained unchecked

due to inadequate coverage

.

Eastern Region

Eastern Region‟s coverage vis-à-vis distribution of exit points within its jurisdiction

showed that RDD, Eastern Region visited the airport, seaport

and foreign post office at Kolkata on an average of thrice in a week, five

days in a week and twice in a month respectively during the period 2000-

05. RDD, Eastern Region stated in March 2006 most of the import/export of animal

product was done through Kolkata. Therefore, with the availability of only a meagre

staff, more importance was given to Kolkata. They had also stated in January, 2006 that

the exit points of Kolkata and Guwahati were manned by technical manpower and for

other exit points technical expertise was extended on case to case basis when asked for

by the concerned customs authority. There was thus no mechanism for regular

deployment of manpower at the points, other than Kolkata and Guwahati, prone to illegal

trade concerning wildlife.

While accepting the facts MoEF in May 2006 attributed the deficiencies to

inadequate manpower and infrastructure and contented that the proposed

National Wildlife Crime Control Bureau would address these deficiencies.

Recommendations

Efforts should be made to improve communication and intelligence network, for

creation of strike force, provision of adequate arms and ammunition. NWCCB

should be set up early for overall support in combating wildlife crime.

Firelines and fire towers should be created and maintained adequately.

For effective patrolling of the reserves, number of camps/ chowkis and forest guards

and foresters in the camps should be augmented. The staff deployed should be

physically fit, capable of carrying out patrolling duties and adequately trained.

Efforts should be made to augment the manpower capacity at PTD to equip it as an

effective oversight agency.

Efforts should be made at augmenting the capacity of the Regional Wildlife

offices for effective control of illegal trade in wildlife.

Vulnerable exit points should invariably be covered by the RDDs. Besides efforts

need to be made at improving the co-ordination among the various agencies involved

in control of illegal wildlife trade.

9. Monitoring and Evaluation

9.1 Functioning of monitoring committees

9.1.1 Central monitoring

The Steering Committee (SC) is the apex body for guidance as well as

overseeing the implementation of Project Tiger. The Steering Committee is

required to meet once in six months. During 1997-2006, against the required 18

meetings, Steering Committee met only four times (October 1998, May 2000,

January 2003 and April 2005). There was a gap of 32 months between the meetings

held in May 2000 and January 2003 respectively. The Steering Committee was also

expected to undertake a review of the Project Tiger once in two years. Subsequent

to 1987 the project was reviewed only thrice, in 1993, 1996 and 2005. PTD stated

in March 2006 that no periodicity has been fixed for the Steering Committee‟s

meeting. It further stated that the Tiger Reserves have been monitored by PTD

through experts. However, the Steering Committee itself in its report of 1987 stated

that the committee should meet regularly, at least once in six months. Absence

of a regular review at the Steering Committee would be detrimental to smooth

functioning of the project.

9.1.2 State monitoring

9.1.2.1 State Board for Wildlife

The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act 2002, provided that the State

Government would create a State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) within six

months from the date of commencement of the Act and SBWL would meet twice

in a year. The Board was to advise the State Government on matters like

management, monitoring, evaluation, and protection of wildlife. While SBWL was

not created in Jharkhand and Karnataka, no meetings of SBWL were held in

Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttaranchal. SBWL did not hold regular meetings

in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal. Follow up action

on the recommendations were also not taken in Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal.

9.1.2.2 Tiger Conservation cell

According to the affidavit submitted by MOEF to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of

India in August 2000, a Tiger Conservation Cell was to be constituted in the States

having higher tiger population for monitoring and evaluation of the

implementation of the project. The State Governments of Arunachal Pradesh,

Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Uttaranchal had not constituted the

Tiger Conservation Cell as of June 2006.

9.1.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Committee

MoEF had directed the States (September 2001) to form a Monitoring and

Evaluation Committee for each Tiger Reserve. The State Governments of

Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil

Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal had not set up any such committee.

9.2 Census of tigers

9.2.1 Deficiency in annual estimation of tigers

As per guidelines (June 2001) of MOEF, tiger census was to be carried out

annually. The guidelines were to be scrupulously followed for estimation of tigers

and other prey species in all Tiger Reserves and reported to PTD latest by 30 June

of the next year. The status of tiger estimation in the Tiger Reserves depicted

in Annexure-12 reveals that tiger estimation was not done annually in most of the

Tiger Reserves. Tiger Reserves that showed a declinein population are given in the

table below:

Name of the

Tiger

Reser

ve

Population Decrease

(nos.) Base year Later base

Manas 89 (1997) 65 (2001) 24

Valmiki 56 (2002) 33 (2005) 23

Bandipur 123 (1997-98) 42 (2001-02) 81

Melghat 69 (2002) 67 (2005) 2

Ranthambore 47 (2004) 26 (2005) 21

Sariska 16 (2004) NIL (2005) 16

Dudhwa 115 (2002) 106 (2005) 9

Katarniaghat 67 (2002) 58 (2005) 9

Periyar 46 (1991) 32 (2002) 14

Reasons for decrease in number of tigers were neither investigated nor

analysed.

9.2.1.1 Methodology of census

The last official national tiger census figures available pertain to 2001-02. The

estimation of tiger was done by counting pugmarks which is not considered a fool

proof methodology by experts. Other techniques available for tiger census like

camera trappings, DNA analysis of scat, mark on the trees by the cat family,

number of cubs in a reserve and sighting of tigers and radio telemetry were not

used. Experts in the field were not involved in the census exercise. PTD stated in

March 2006 that in collaboration with WII it had since refined the methodology

for tiger estimation addressing all the concerns and shortcomings and a hand

book in this regard has been distributed to States in regional languages and Tiger

Reserves have been directed to send monthly reports on presence of tiger

evidences in the prescribed formats as a part of routine monitoring. PTD further

stated that the intensive monitoring of tigers using radio telemetry has been

initiated in the Tiger Reserves at Kanha, Pench (Madhya Pradesh) and

Sunderbans. In view of the initiatives it contended that the earlier directive to

form core groups had become redundant. However, the status of receipt of the

monthly monitoring of tiger evidences for 2005-06 revealed that while

Indravati and Pakhui Tiger Reserves did not submit a single report,

Bandipur, Dudhwa, Manas, Melghat, Nameri, Palamau, Ranthambore, Satpura

Tiger Reserves did not submit reports for over six months and Corbett,

Kalakad Mundanthurai, Panna, Periyar and Valmiki Tiger Reserves did not

submit the report for three months despite reminders from PTD.

9.2.1.2 Monitoring by PTD The Tiger Reserves did not submit the returns on estimation of tigers to PTD

regularly. Reserves that submitted the returns over 2001-05 are shown in the table

below:

Yea

r No. of reserves submitting the return

200

1 1 (Sunderbans)

200

2 7 (Bandhavgarh, Kanha, Panna, Pench (Madhya Pradesh), Simlipal,

Satpura, Periyar)

200

3 9 (Nagarjunsagar, Tadoba-Andhari, Palamau, Simlipal, Dudhwa,

Ranthambore, Corbett, Sariska, Kalakad Mundanthurai)

200

4 8 (Sunderbans, Melghat, Ranthambore, Sariska, Valmiki, Simlipal,

Indravati, Palamau)

200

5 1 (Valmiki)

Check in PTD indicated inadequate action on the reports.

9.2.1.3 Monthly reports on tiger mortality

According to the instruction issued by PTD in September 2001, monthly

reports relating to mortality of tigers, co-predators and other wild animals in the

prescribed format were to be submitted to PTD by all Tiger Reserves by the 15th

of every month. However during 2000-05, Manas, Indravati, Bandipur,

Bhadra, Melghat, Tadoba-Andhari, Pench (Maharashtra), Simlipal, Pench

(Madhya Pradesh), Bandhavgarh and Panna Tiger Reserves did not submit

these reports to PTD. Though post mortem was mandatory, the same was not

carried out in six out of 13 cases of tiger deaths at Kanha Tiger Reserve and in

the case of death of a tiger cub at Pench Tiger Reserve, during 2000-05.

9.3 Deficiencies in concurrent monitoring

The Project Tiger Directorate is to do the concurrent monitoring of the Tiger

Reserves by obtaining the monthly, quarterly, half-yearly and annual progress

reports from the Tiger Reserves. These reports were not being regularly

received in PTD :

Name of Report Status of receipt

Monthly Progress Report In the year 2003, only eight Tiger Reserves submitted the monthly progress

reports. Out of these, none of the Tiger Reserves had submitted the monthly

reports for all the twelve months. While Namdapha Tiger Reserve submitted the

monthly progress reports for seven months, Kanha and Simlipal Tiger Reserves submitted the reports for four months, other four Tiger Reserves submitted it only

for one or two months. In 2004, monthly progress reports were received only

from three reserves out of which Namdapha Tiger Reserve submitted reports for

seven months and other two reserves for three and four months. In 2005, only

Namdapha Tiger Reserve submitted the monthly progress report and that too only

for one month. Quarterly Progress Report Quarterly progress report during 2003-04 was received only for one quarter from

Namdapha Tiger Reserve. During 2004-05 Bhadra, Namdapha and

Pench(Madhya Pradesh) Tiger Reserves submitted report for one quarter. None

of the other 25 Tiger Reserves had submitted the quarterly reports for 2003-05.

Half yearly Report While during 2003-04, only three Tiger Reserves at Satpura, Dampa and

Namdapha submitted one half yearly reports each; during 2004-05, only Palamau

and Pench (Madhya Pradesh) Tiger Reserves submitted half yearly reports.

Other 26 Tiger Reserves did not submit the half yearly reports at all.

Annual Report During 2002-03, while nine Tiger Reserves submitted the Annual Report, during

2003-04 the report was received only from five Tiger Reserves. During 2004-05,

the Directorate received the Annual Reports only from two Tiger Reserves. Annual

Reports were not received from the other 26 Tiger Reserves.

PTD stated in March 2006 that the experience of implementing Project Tiger as a

high level administrative body based on directives and recommendations has not

proved effective. PTD further stated that due to the absence of statutory

empowerment, the guidelines and directives issued from Project Tiger were not

enforceable, and transgression did not attract penal provisions of the law. PTD

claimed that the proposed legislation for creating the National Tiger Conservation

Authority would enable effective implementation of plans for tiger conservation

apart from addressing violations of directives. The reply has to be viewed against

the fact that way back in 1987, the Steering Committee had advocated the need

for clearly laying down the authority and responsibilities including financial

powers of PTD besides strengthening overall authority and responsibility of

Field Directors by delegating magisterial powers within the jurisdiction of the

Reserve, similar to those exercised by “Railway” and “Canal” Magistrates in

their respective jurisdictions.

Recommendations

Monitoring mechanisms at the Centre and the State levels need to be strengthened.

An effective system of follow up of recommendations should be instituted and the

accountability of officials at various levels needs to be enforced.

Census/ estimation of tigers should be done regularly. Techniques of tiger estimation

need to be refined so that the reliability of census data is enhanced.

10. Impact of measures for conservation and protection of tigers

Tiger population in any habitat is dependent upon prevailing welfare measures and

decimating factors. Welfare measures tend to increase the population, while the

decimating factors tend to decrease the population. The efforts of the Government

have been directed at tiger conservation and protection in the Tiger Reserves. An

analysis revealed that despite conservation and protection measures, of the 15 Tiger

Reserves created between 1973 and 1984, eight Tiger Reserves namely Periyar,

Melghat, Ranthambore, Sariska, Indravati, Palamau, Sunderbans, and Manas

had not registered increase in tiger population over a period 1984-2002, as

indicated below :

Sl.

No

State-wise

Name of

Tiger Reserve

Tiger population in the States as a whole

including in the Tiger Reserves and

population of the tigers in the reserves

from

1984 to 2001-02

Remar

ks

1984

1989

1993

1997

2001-02

1

(1)

Andhra Pradesh

164

235

197

171

192

In the Tiger Reserve there

was an increase in

population of only 2 tigers

between 1984-

2002 whereas during the

same period overall tiger

population

in the State had increased.

Nagarjunsagar

65

94

44

39

67

Karnataka

202

257

305

350

401

While the overall tiger

2

(1)

Bandipur

53

50

66

75

82

population in the State had

increased by 100 per cent,

the tiger population in the

Reserves had increased by 55 per cent only.

3

(1)

Kerala

89

45

57

73

71

Despite increased

conservation measures,

there was a decrease in the

total population of tigers in

the reserve from 44 in 1984

to 36 in 2001-02.

Periyar

44

45

30

40

36

4

(1)

Maharashtra 301 417 276 257 238

Despite increased

conservation measures,

there was a decrease in the

total population of tigers in the reserve from 80 in 1984

to 73 in 2001-02.

Melghat

80

77

72

73

73

5

(2)

Rajasthan

96

99

64

58

58

The overall population of

tigers in the State as well as

both the Tiger Reserves had

registered a decline and

shockingly the tiger population outside the Tiger

Reserves had become extinct

as is evident by the fact that

there were 32 tigers outside

the reserves in 1984 which

had come down to one in

2001-02.

Ranthambore

38

44

36

32

35

Sariska

26

19

24

24

22

Total

64

63

60

56

57

6

(2)

Madhya Pradesh 786 985 912 927 710

Though there was an increase in the tiger population in

Kanha over the period 1984-

2002,

there was a decline in the

population of tigers in

Indravati from 38 in 1984 to 29 in

2001-

02. Similarly the overall

tiger population in the State

had sharply declined from 985 in

1989 to 710 in 2001-02.

Kanha 109 97 100 114 127

Indravati(now in

Chattisgar

h)

38

28

18

15

29

Total

147 125 118 129 156

7

(1)

Uttar Pradesh

698 735 465 475 284 Though Corbett Tiger

Reserve had registered a second best increase in tiger

population in the country

by 52 per cent during 1984-

2002, there was a shocking

reduction in the overall

population of tigers in the

State from 698 in 1984 to

284 in 2001-02.

Corbett (now in

Uttaranch

al)

90

91

123

138

137

8

(1)

Bihar

138 157 137 103 76

The overall tiger population

in the State as well as in the

Tiger Reserve had registered

a sharp decline of 45 per

cent and 48 per cent during

1984-2002.

Palamau (now in

Jharkhand)

62

55

44

44

32

9

(1)

Orissa

202

243

226

194

173

Though the Tiger Reserve

had registered an increase

in the tiger population, the

overall population of tiger

in the State had gone down

from 243 in

1989 to 173 in 2001-02.

Simlipal

71

93

95

98

99

10

(2)

West Bengal

352 353 335 361 349

As compared to Buxa Tiger

Reserve which had doubled

its tiger population during

the period, Sunderbans

Tiger Reserve did not

register an equivalent

increase in

population with reduction in

the figure from 264 in 1984

to 245 in 2001-02.

Sunderbans

264

269

251

263

245

Buxa

15

33

29

32

31

Total

279

302

280

295

276

11

(1)

Assam

376 376 325 458 354 There was a sharp decline in

the population of tigers in the

Manas Tiger Reserve by 47

per

cent i.e. from 123 in 1984 to 65 in 2001-02.

Manas

123

92

81

125

65

12

(1)

Arunachal

Pradesh

219

135

180

NA

NA

The overall tiger population in

the State for the years 1997

and

2001-02 was not available for

the purpose of carrying out the

analysis.

Namdapha

43

47

47

57

61

12

(15)

Total

A. States as a

whole

3623

4037

3479

3427

2906

B. Total in Tiger

Reserves only

1121

1134

1060

1169

1141

Note: The period 1984 to 2002 was taken for comparison because these Tiger Reserves were created

between 1973 to 1984 and the period of 18 years from 1984 to 2002 was considered a

reasonably long period for the conservation efforts to show results. Since the official census

figures for 2005-06 have not been published, the last official census figures relating to 2001-

02 were taken for comparison purpose.

The Project Tiger started with the prime objective of attaining a viable

population of tigers in the country. But the acceptable norms of sustaining a viable

tiger population were yet to be framed. As per the above table, the population of

tigers outside the reserves was 2502 as of 1984 and declined to 1765 by the end of

2001-02. During the same period, the population of tigers in the reserves increased

from 1121 to 1141.

PTD stated in March 2006 that the tiger population does not increase exponentially

over the years nor is there any defined rate of increase every year and the difference

in population estimates over the years should not be construed as a failure of

conservation as the real tiger numbers in the country were never free from

controversy. PTD contended that due to these reasons it never probed decrease in

tiger numbers unless and until the overall trend is alarming. PTD further contended

that the status of habitat was more important and relevant in the present context

rather than tiger numbers. The reply has to

be viewed against PTD‟s own admission that tigers have a short gestation period

and a remarkable power of recovery if the habitat is well protected and sustainable.

PTD further admitted that the biotic disturbance in the form of human settlements

and other land uses in the Tiger Reserves in addition to non compliance with its

conservation directives by the States were the contributory factors for the shrinkage

in the tiger population and the situation is being remedied with the creation of the

National Tiger Conservation Authority with statutory provisions for addressing

tiger conservation in Tiger Reserves. However the fact remains that though the

prime objective of the Project Tiger was to attain a viable population of the tigers in

the country, acceptable norms for sustaining viable tiger population was yet to be

framed and the net increase in tiger population in 15 Tiger Reserves over 18 years

was only 20.

11. Conclusion

The Performance Audit of conservation and protection of tigers in Tiger

Reserves revealed that Government efforts had helped in bringing into focus

important conservation issues needing attention, such as ecosystem approach,

human dimensions in wildlife conservation, eco-development in

the surroundings of the Tiger Reserves and had also drawn attention to wildlife

conservation in general. However, the Performance Audit revealed that there is

lack of focussed approach to conservation in Tiger Reserves in the absence of

committed personnel and cooperation of concerned State Governments besides

weakness in the Project Tiger Directorate to provide efficient monitoring. As a

result, poaching and unnatural deaths of tigers outnumbered the natural

deaths. There was a decline in the tiger population in many reserves. Conservation

efforts in the Tiger Reserves by and large remained ineffective due to

inordinate delays in the settlement of acquisition rights under the Wildlife

Protection Act 1972, inadequate wildlife corridors connecting Tiger Reserves with

other Protected Areas, slow progress of relocation of villages outside the Tiger

Reserves as well as poor tourism management. In sum, the Government efforts at

conservation and protection of tigers were at crossroads due to several long-

standing problems. The onus rests with the MoEF and the States to make tiger

conservation more meaningful and result oriented by evolving the most appropriate

mechanism to implement the project to save tigers and realize the goal of a viable

tiger population in the country. The matter was referred to the Ministry of

Environment and Forests in June. 2006; their reply was awaited as of July 2006.

Environmental impact/hazard due to unscientific coal mining, Meghalaya.

In Meghalaya, the local land ownership system permits individual land owners to

perform mining activities without legislative interference. Individuals generally

conduct mining on small plots of land. The coal deposits in Meghalaya are mostly of

bedded type and the seams are thin in nature and are generally found at shallow

depths. Coal mining operations are performed by traditional rat-hole method in

which a small tunnel, which runs parallel to the ground surface, is dug in the hills.

After extraction of coal, the rat holes are never filled up. Coal before sale is spread

along the roadside throughout the coal belt.

The mining practices produce irreversible negative impacts on the surface as well as

ground water quality which is mostly polluted due to the discharge of acid mine

drain and coal dump run offs. These effluents contaminate water by the process of

leaching which makes the water highly acidic. This discharge of environmental

pollutants on inland and surface waters violates the general standards restricting the

pH values between 3.5 and 4.5 only. The rivers and streams have become totally

unfit even for the propagation of aquatic life, which requires pH values in the range

of 5.5 to 9.0. Washing of coal prior to loading in trucks for export adds to water

pollution.

Although the mining activity itself does not contribute much towards air pollution

but its associate activities like handling, storage and transportation degrade the

ambient air quality quite considerably. The problem gets magnified because coal is

transported through open-top trucks generating pollutants like suspended particulate

matter.

Thus, unplanned and unscientific coal mining activities in the State, which started

about a century ago, have achieved dangerous dimensions and are creating

ecological disturbances and negative environmental impact.

Mining activities across the country are regulated by the Indian Bureau of Mines. In

Meghalaya, there is no regulatory authority. As a result, large areas of abandoned

mines have now turned into wastelands. The abandoned mines are empty inside and

as such are potential environmental hazards as they could cave in and cause disaster.

Although Government has no control over the mining system, it can take adequate

measures through regular interactions to make people aware of the negative aspects

of traditional methods of mining, extraction and transportation.

6.2.18 Acknowledgement

Audit findings as a result of checking of records were reported in April 2006 to

Government and DMR with a specific request to attend the meeting of Audit Review

Committee so that the viewpoint of Government and the department could be taken

into account before finalising the review. The meeting was held in April 2006 with

the Director. No official representing Government attended the meeting. The results

of discussion have been included in the review paragraphs. Adequate co-operation

was extended during the conduct of the review by the auditee department.

6.2.19 Conclusion

Above facts reveal that inter departmental co-ordination which is an effective

mechanism to exercise foolproof check on extraction of minerals needs

strengthening. This lacuna coupled with the fact that the vigilance squad never

conducted any surprise checks, resulted in indiscriminate illegal mining, extraction

and despatch of minerals without payment of revenue. Though the department failed

to recover the arrear revenue, no certificate proceedings were initiated.

6.2.20 Recommendations

To check the recurring revenue loss / leakage the department may consider the

following recommendations:

• Internal control system should be strengthened and vigilance squad should be made

functional;

• Certificate proceedings should be initiated;

• Proper/adequate coordination may be established among departments dealing with

collection of mineral receipts;

• Timely action should be initiated to cancel lease agreements that have remained

inoperative.

Timber from State forest Department, Meghalaya

Under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and Rules framed thereunder (as adopted

by Government of Meghalaya), felling and removal of trees from the reserved forest

area, without valid pass constitutes a forest offence punishable with fine. Forest

produce felled/removed illegally is also liable to be seized by the Forest Department.

To prevent such illegal felling/removal of forest produce, deployment of forest

protection force and erection of forest check gates at all the vital points is the primary

responsibility of the Forest Department.

Test check of records of the DFO, Garo Hills forest division revealed in August

2005, that 754.760 cum of timber of different species involving royalty of Rs.35.93

lakh was illegally felled from different ranges/beats during the period between April

2004 and March 2005 and the entire out turn of timber was removed by miscreants

during the aforesaid period. Illegal felling and removal of such a large quantity of

timber by miscreants from the State reserved forests indicates poor enforcement

resulting in loss of revenue of Rs.35.93 lakh.

After this was pointed out, Government while admitting the facts, stated in

December 2006 that proper executive action was being taken by the field staff to

prosecute the offenders.

Performance audit of national parks including wildlife preservation in Himachal Pradesh

Highlights

The wildlife wing was created in the State to protect, develop and scientifically manage the

wildlife in the protected areas, to protect the wildlife and its habitats in areas outside the

protected area and to carry out integrated eco-development work in the vicinity of protected

areas to reduce the biotic pressure in protected areas.

Adequate attention towards protection, development and scientific management of wildlife

or its environment had not been paid. The boundaries of protected areas were not notified

rationally. Inhabited and cultivated areas, heavily burdened with biotic pressures were

included while areas harbouring wild animals were excluded. There were cases of

abnormal delay in declaring protected areas. Failure to finalise proposals in time resulted

in non-recovery of committed funds from various user agencies thereby putting the

Government to loss.

3.4.1 Introduction

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act) empowers the State Government to declare

any area of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or

zoological significance as either a Sanctuary or a National Park. Non-forestry

activities such as felling of trees/bamboo, removal of biomass and miscellaneous

construction, etc., in the protected areas of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries

were prohibited by the Supreme Court of India in February 2000. The State

Government issued intention notifications for the establishment of 32 wildlife

sanctuaries and two national parks between 1954 and 2000. A map showing the

wildlife areas in the State is given in Appendix-XX.

As per the notifications issued from time to time, out of the total geographical area of

55,673 sq kms of the State, 7,122.19 sq kms is under wildlife sanctuaries (5,692.79 sq

kms) and national parks (1,429.40 sq kms), which forms 12.79 per cent of the State as

shown below, as against the national average of 4.50 per cent. However, the actual

area on the ground is 7,154.42 sq kms. Variation between the notified and actual

ground area was attributed by the State Government to irrational survey conducted

by the department. The State Government has sent a proposal in May 2006, for

rationalisation of boundaries of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks, to the

Government of India for approval, which is still (August 2006) awaited. According

to this proposal, the protected area network would increase to 7,484.60 sq kms.

Notified Protected Area

(87.21%)

Conservation of wildlife management programmes were being funded through

various State and Central schemes. The wildlife wing of the department was created

in March 1957 to carry out the following activities:

• to protect, develop and scientifically manage the wildlife in the protected areas;

• to protect the wildlife and its habitat in areas outside the protected areas;

• to carry out integrated eco-development work in the vicinity of protected areas to

reduce the biotic pressure in protected areas;

• to carry out captive breeding and rehabilitation of wildlife species of the Himalayan

region in zoos;

• to create nature awareness among local people in general and youth, in particular

and to also involve the Non governmental organisations; and

• to carry out field research relating to wildlife of Western Himalayas

3.4.2 Organisational set up

The organisational set up of the Forest Department for carrying out the above

mentioned activities is as follows:

3.4.3 Scope of Audit

A performance review of the Forest Department (Wildlife wing)2

was conducted

(November 2005-March 2006) to assess the functioning of the wildlife divisions. The

records of all the six wildlife divisions3

, three territorial divisions4

, Conservator of

Forests (National Park), Shamshi and Municipal Corporation Forest Division,

Shimla were test-checked. This was supplemented by information furnished by the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Shimla and Divisional Forest

Officer (Territorial), Pangi.

3.4.4 Audit objectives

The audit objectives were as follows:

to assess whether the protection development and management of wildlife and its

environment in the protected areas and outside has been carried out efficiently and

effectively;

to see the extent of compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972; and

to see whether monitoring of implementation of various activities was effective.

3.4.5 Audit criteria

Provisions of the Act, guidelines, rules, action plans and orders of the Government

of India and of the State Government, as well as orders of the Supreme Court.

Priorities fixed by the department for conservation and protection of wildlife.

Plans for scientific management and systematic growth of national parks and wildlife

sanctuaries.

3.4.6 Audit methodology

Before commencing audit, the audit objectives were discussed (October 2005) in an

entry conference with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife).

Relevant records were test-checked and information collected from the Principal

Chief Conservator of Forests (Pr. CCF) (Wildlife) and field units on the basis of

questionnaire and replies to audit memos were analysed to arrive at audit

conclusions. The audit findings were discussed (May 2006) with the Principal

Secretary and the views of the Government were incorporated suitably where

appropriate.

3.4.7 Financial outlay and expenditure

The department stated that the requirement of funds for the implementation of the

programme was assessed on the basis of the parameters of the management

plans/annual plan of operations. The year-wise details of funds released, amount

budgeted and expenditure incurred thereagainst in both the Central and State sectors

during 2001-2006 were as under:

Table: 3.4.1

(Rupees in lakh)

Year Amount

released

by GOI

Amount

budgeted by

State

Government

Central

sector

Expenditure Unspent

amount

Budget

provision

Expenditure

State sector

2001-

2002

253.82 223.53 223.53 30.29 458.10 458.10

2002-

2003

106.89 80.68 80.68 26.21 465.97 465.97

2003-

2004

214.20 187.86 187.86 26.34 469.70 469.70

2004-

2005

369.91 323.92 323.92 45.99 449.37 449.37

2005-

2006

328.06 261.22 261.22 66.84 510.89 510.89

Total: 1,272.88 1,077.21 1,077.21 195.67 2,354.03 2,354.03

Source: Departmental figures.

It would be seen that the funds released by the Government of India during

2001-2006 for specific purposes were not fully budgeted and utilised. The

unutilised amount was adjusted by the Government of India against the releases

of subsequent years. The State Government thus could not derive the benefit of

additional funds.

The Pr. CCF (Wildlife) attributed (March 2006) non-utilisation of funds to late

release of funds by the Government of India, non-receipt of sanctions from the State

Government and non-feasibility of execution of works falling in snow bound areas.

The reply of the department is not tenable as the funds released by the Government

of India were not fully budgeted for by the State Government and it failed to utilise

the Central grants amounting to Rs 195.67 lakh during 2001-2006.

Audit findings

3.4.8 Programme implementation

3.4.8.1 Non-preparation of management plans

As per the Manual for Planning Wildlife Management in protected areas and

managed forests, management plans for focused development, scientific

management and systematic growth of parks and sanctuaries are required to be

prepared and got approved before their implementation. Of the 32 wildlife

sanctuaries and two national parks, management plans for 20 wildlife sanctuaries5

and National Park, Shamshi were prepared but had not been approved as of March

2006. Management plans for the remaining 12 wildlife sanctuaries6

and Pin Valley

National Park, Kaza were under preparation.

The Pr. CCF (Wildlife) while confirming the above facts, attributed (March 2006)

some of the shortcomings to non-approval/preparation of management plans. The

Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the main exercise for preparation of

management plans in respect of all the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks had

been completed and were in the final stage.

3.4.8.2 Representative potential areas not notified as protected areas

Intention notifications for creation of wildlife sanctuary, Shikari Devi in Mandi

district (area: 213 sq kms) and extension of two existing wildlife sanctuaries7

(area:

553 sq kms) in Kinnaur and Shimla districts were issued (March 1974 and March

2002) under Section 18 of the Act. Further action to declare these areas as protected

areas, required to be completed within a period of two years from the date of

notification, had not been completed as of February 2006, despite directions from the

Government of India (October 1996). The DFO (wildlife), Sarahan, while admitting

the facts stated (January 2006) that a complete proposal was submitted (July 2005) to

the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Shimla well in time and that the matter was

under consideration. The DFO (wildlife), Kullu attributed (February 2006) the delay

to non-publishing of the notification by the Collector, Mandi.

The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the intention notifications were

issued without taking into consideration the ground situation and large stretches of

habitations and cultivations were included.

The reply is not tenable, since considerable time has elapsed since the issue of the

intention notification and in case any changes were required to the notified area,

these could have been done and the area could have been declared as protected.

3.4.8.3 Irrational creation of protected areas network without keeping in view the

ecological status of a particular area

The area notified as protected for sanctuaries or national parks should have adequate

bio-diversity. Areas with high biotic pressures of human and cattle population which

adversely affect the conservation activities and give rise to human-animal conflict for

usu-fruct

should not be declared as protected areas.

(a) In eight divisions

and Pin Valley National Park, Kaza, an area of 3,061.14 sq kms

was notified between February 1954 and April 2000 as protected for 19 wildlife

sanctuaries. The notified protected areas had 772 thick habitations with a population

of 1,11,089 human beings and 1,71,152 cattle as of March 2006. Cultivated and

inhabited land also existed over an area of 273.81 sq kms within the sanctuary area,

which was heavily burdened with biotic pressures. On the other hand, 903.56 sq kms

of area contiguous to the Rakchham-Chhitkul (Kinnaur district) wildlife sanctuary

(819.75 sq kms) and a newly proposed Sahu (Chamba district) wildlife sanctuary

(83.81 sq kms) harbouring wild animals had not been considered for protection.

(b) The department proposed (March 2006) denotification of four wildlife sanctuaries

(area: 409 sq kms), which were notified between October 1999 and April 2000, as the

area under them was negligible and they were burdened with the rights of the local

people. This was indicative of lack of proper planning at the time of creation of these

wildlife sanctuaries, and resulted in wasteful expenditure of Rs 1.40 crore on their

management during 2001-2006.

(c) In 12 wildlife sanctuaries notified during October-November 1999 (protected

area: 2,371 sq kms), notifications were issued without adequate consideration of the

ecological status of specific areas. The concerned DFOs had proposed rationalisation

of boundaries by exclusion of an area of 161.78 sq kms due to existence of private

land (115.41 sq kms) in the sanctuary area and high biotic pressures involving 525

habitations. They had also proposed inclusion of 1,169.35 sq kms of area with rich

bio-diversity, which had not been included in the notified protected areas.

3.4.8.4 Variation between notified area and actual area

In five divisions, the area notified by the State Government between February 1954

and November 1999 for 11 wildlife sanctuaries varied from the actually existing area.

In the case of seven wildlife sanctuaries, the area notified was 1,243.65 sq kms as

against the actual area of 842.18 sq kms on ground. In the case of the remaining four

wildlife sanctuaries, as against the notified area of 234.63 sq kms, the actual area was

494.99 sq kms. The Principal Secretary attributed (May 2006) the irrational creation

of protected areas network and variation between notified and actual ground area to

faulty issue of intention notifications without taking into consideration the ground

realities and inclusion of large stretches of habitations and cultivations. It was further

stated that a proposal for rationalisation of boundaries for the protected areas had

been sent (May 2006) to the Government of India and that all anomalies would be

resolved after the proposal was approved.

3.4.8.5 Eco-sensitive zones around protected areas not constituted

For wildlife/bio-diversity to flourish within the protected areas, the Government of

India issued (July 2002) instructions to identify and notify land falling within 10 kms

of the boundaries of protected areas as eco-fragile zones and sensitise, organise and

train the people living in these areas to cope, live and develop in co-existence with

wildlife.

Action to identify and notify such zones had not been taken as of February 2006.

The Pr. CCF (Wildlife) stated (March 2006) that the matter was being examined.

3.4.8.6 Non-declaration of wetlands as protected areas for conservation

Thirty major wetlands identified for conservation in the State had not been declared

as protected areas. Wetlands are hub centres of bio-diversity both in flora and fauna,

harbour some rare species and are home to migratory birds. Their management

should, thus, focus on maintaining the habitat in such a way that the birds keep

coming. Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests was also

providing assistance for the management of wetlands if the management of these

wetlands rested with the wildlife wing. The management and development of these

wetlands was with the State Council for Science, Technology and Environment

(SCST&E) instead of the wildlife wing of the department. The State Wildlife Board

in its meeting held in July 2005 had decided that the wildlife wing of the Forest

Department be declared as the nodal agency in place of SCST&E.

The Principal CCF (Wildlife) confirmed the facts and stated (August 2005) that

necessary action was being initiated. However, no action was taken by the

Government as of May 2006.

3.4.9 Administration of sanctuaries and national parks

3.4.9.1 Control of sanctuary area not transferred by territorial divisions to the

wildlife wing

The State Government notified (August 1986) the transfer of control and

management of six wildlife sanctuaries (Tundah, Kugti, Shimla Water Supply

Catchment, Dhauladhar, Sechu-Tuan nallah and Gobind Sagar) from territorial units

to the wildlife wing of the Forest Department. The orders had however, not been

implemented as of March 2006. The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the

Gobind Sagar wildlife sanctuary had been transferred (August 2005) to the wildlife

wing and the remaining five wildlife sanctuaries would be transferred after the

approval of proposal for rationalisation of boundaries.

Test-check of records, however, revealed (December 2005 and February 2006) that

physical control of Gobind Sagar wildlife sanctuary had not been taken over by DFO

(wildlife), Hamirpur as of May 2006 due to shortage of staff. It was also noticed that

out of the notified area of 361 sq kms of Nargu, Kalatop-Khajjiar and Kias wildlife

sanctuaries, an area of 147 sq kms was still under the control of DFOs (Territorial),

Mandi, Dalhousie and Kullu respectively. The DFOs (wildlife), Kullu and Chamba

stated (December 2005) that the transfer of the area of these wildlife sanctuaries had

been taken up with the concerned DFOs.

Failure to transfer the control of these wildlife sanctuaries to the wildlife wing

defeated the very purpose of creating protected areas for focused wildlife

management.

3.4.9.2 Control of the Pong Dam wetland not handed over

Pong Dam wetland (area: 307 sq kms) was notified (October 1999) as a wildlife

sanctuary by the State Government.

It was noticed that Rs 57.24 lakh was received from the Government of India for this

sanctuary during 2001-2006, out of which, Rs 45.69 lakh had been spent as of

December 2005. However, it was seen that the physical control of the sanctuary had

still not been taken over by the DFO (Wildlife), Hamirpur from the SCST&E and

DFOs (Territorial), Dehra and Nurpur. The DFO (Wildlife), Hamirpur stated

(January 2006) that the funds were utilised to enhance the exiting habitat for better

management of the Pong Dam lake.

The reply is not tenable as physical control of the sanctuary was required for focused

and scientific management of wildlife.

3.4.10 Pin Valley National Park

3.4.10.1 Idle investment on the construction of interpretation centre building

To create nature/wildlife awareness among the people, organise

seminars/workshops and demonstrate wildlife, construction of a wildlife

interpretation centre building at Rongtong (Spiti valley) was completed (July 2004)

(except for plaster, fixing of tiles and water and sanitary fittings) at an expenditure of

Rs 82.99 lakh. The building was, however, not utilised for the intended purpose.

The Additional District Magistrate on the direction of the Chairman, Project

Advisory Committee ordered (July 2005) the transfer of the building to the Technical

Education Department for opening an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) from the

academic year 2005-2006. The Principal Secretary while confirming the facts stated

(May 2006) that the Tribal Commissioner had ordered the transfer of the building to

the Technical Education Department for opening the ITI.

Possession of the building had, however, not been taken over by the Technical

Education Department as of May 2006. The expenditure of Rs 82.99 lakh incurred

on the construction of the building had thus remained unfruitful.

3.4.10.2 Idle investment on works

In Pin Valley National Park, Kaza and two wildlife divisions (Kullu and Sarahan)

construction of four buildings (guard huts, trekker hut and log hut) was taken up for

execution between June 1998 and August 2004, and was completed between March

2003 and March 2005 at an expenditure of Rs 36.46 lakh. The constructed buildings

could, however, not be put to use as of March 2006 due to non-provision of

electricity connection, furniture and crockery items, thus resulting in idle investment

of Rs 36.46 lakh.

The Director, Pin Valley National Park, Kaza and Conservator of Forests (wildlife),

Dharamshala confirmed (November 2005-February 2006) the facts and stated that

steps would be taken for obtaining funds from the Government.

3.4.11 National park, Shamshi

3.4.11.1 Failure of department to get the treatment plan for stabilisation of

the damaged protected area

The National Hydro-electric Power Corporation (NHPC) authorities unauthorisedly

dumped excavated material at undesignated sites during the construction of roads

and links to the Parvati Hydro Electric Project Stage-II. The forest authorities found

the NHPC‟s activities in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, as it

damaged the ecology of the area. Consequently, a treatment plan amounting to Rs

2.57 crore involving soil and moisture conservation works for stabilisation of the

damaged area was sent (August 2004) to the NHPC. It was, however, noticed that

neither had the NHPC executed the treatment plan works, nor was Rs 2.57 crore

recovered by the Conservator of Forests (National Park), Shamshi from NHPC. The

Principal CCF stated (September 2006) that the matter was still under

correspondence between the Conservator of Forests, National Park, Shamshi and

NHPC.

3.4.11.2 Loss due to non-follow up with NHPC

The NHPC authorities, during the course of construction of roads and tunnels for

Parvati Hydro Electric Power Project Stage-II, damaged 221 green trees between

March 2003 and November 2004. The Conservator of Forests (National Park),

Shamshi issued (May 2003 and February 2005) damage bills for Rs 21 lakh to

NHPC, against which, payment of only Rs 5.12 lakh was received. Payment for the

balance damages of Rs 15.88 lakh was still to be made by NHPC. It was noticed in

audit that these damages had not been got acknowledged by the department from the

functionaries of the NHPC. This resulted in loss of revenue of Rs 15.88 lakh.

The Conservator of Forests (National Park), Shamshi, while confirming the facts

stated (February 2006) that the bills had been sent (January 2006) to the concerned

Range Officer for getting them acknowledged from the NHPC authorities for early

payment. The reply is not tenable as the bills should have been got acknowledged

from the NHPC immediately after issue.

3.4.11.3 Loss due to incorrect application of market rates for claims

recovered for damaged trees

The functionaries of NHPC damaged 701 deodar, kail and broad leaved trees

(standing volume: 143.36 cum) during the construction (March-April 2004) of two

roads, for which payment of Rs 35.99 lakh was received (May 2005).

Scrutiny of records revealed that the damage bills had been raised for lesser amount

due to incorrect application of market rates thereby putting the State Government to

a loss of Rs 7.58 lakh. The Conservator of Forest (National Park), Shamshi admitted

(February 2006) the facts and stated that the short-claimed amount would be

recovered from the NHPC by issuing revised bills.

3.4.12 Wildlife Sanctuary, Majathal

3.4.12.1 Non-recovery of compensation for loss of environment

Government of India diverted (November 2000) 954.69 hectares of forest land,

including 84.16 hectares area of Majathal wildlife sanctuary to National Thermal

Power Corporation (NTPC) for the construction of the Kol Dam project. It was

noticed that the bill for 44,516 trees and 6,000 saplings amounting to Rs 1.99 crore

sent by the DFO (Wildlife) Shimla in December 2005 had not been paid by the

NTPC as of September 2006. The Pr. CCF stated (September 2006) that efforts were

on to recover the amount from the NTPC.

Further, the State Government issued (June 2002) a notification for levy of

compensation for the loss of environmental value of forest lands diverted to non-

forestry use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from the user agencies. The

DFO (Wildlife), Shimla informed (June 2004) the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife),

Shimla that an area of 84.16 hectares of Majathal wildlife sanctuary would be sub-

merged in the Kol Dam. Compensation for the loss of environmental value

amounting to Rs 4.21 crore recoverable from NTPC at Rs 5 lakh per hectare had not

been claimed by the department as of March 2006.

The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that efforts were being made to recover

the amount from NTPC.

3.4.13 Wildlife conservation

Census of wildlife species indicates the effectiveness of conservation measures

undertaken. Management plans envisage undertaking of annual census of wildlife

species in wildlife areas to assess the birds and animals status and to establish the

nature of threats to these species.

Test-check of records revealed the following:

(a) There was no system for periodical census of all species to assess their status and

establish the nature of threats to these species. The Principal CCF (Wildlife) stated

(March 2006) that a system was being devised for carrying out census of some

important animals such as snow leopards, leopards and pheasants, etc. Scrutiny of

the pheasants‟ census carried out (May 2005) for seven species16

in the State revealed

that the density of these species was 1.93 per sq km of the total forest area of 37,033

sq kms whereas the density of the species in protected wildlife area (7,122.19 sq kms)

was

1. 0.79 per sq km only. The density in the other area of 29,910.67 sq kms was

2. 2.20 per sq km. Similarly, the leopard census (June 2004) disclosed that as

against the density of 0.020 leopards per sq km for the State, the density in the forest

area was 0.023 leopards per sq km whereas it was 0.009 leopards per sq km in the

wildlife protected area. This was indicative of the fact that the protected areas were

no longer serving the purpose of bio-diversity conservation. The Principal Secretary

stated (May 2006) that the anomalies had been removed in the proposed policy for

rationalisation of boundaries and that the situation would improve after boundary

rationalisation.

The Department had identified (1999-2001) 26 endangered species in the State

requiring intervention for their protection and conservation breeding. A review of the

wildlife conservation measures initiated by the department revealed lack of planning

and prioritisation. Adequate preservation and conservation measures had not been

taken up, except for the following interventions:

(b) The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) sanctioned (December 2003) a project for

conservation breeding programme of Western Tragopan, at Sarahan pheasantry for

Rs 4.94 crore to be financed by CZA and Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC)

(user agency) for a period of five years upto 2007-2008. However, only Rs 14.51 lakh

(2.94 per cent) had been utilised on this programme upto December 2005 against the

available funds of Rs 47.50 lakh provided by the CZA/NJPC.

(c) A Cheer pheasantry breeding project (cost: Rs 4.79 crore) at Chail wildlife

sanctuary was formulated by DFO (wildlife), Shimla in May 2005. Approval of the

CZA had not been received as of March 2006.

(d) The Core Group Committee decided (April 2004) that conservation breeding

projects of Himalayan Monal and Red Jungle Fowl should be prepared. It was

noticed (March 2006) that the project on conservation breeding of Red Jungle Fowl

at Kheryon (Chail) was prepared (May 2005) for Rs 1.51 crore but had not been sent

to CZA for approval as of March 2006. Project for conservation breeding of Monal

had not been prepared as of March 2006.

(e) The population of vultures had registered a decline of over 97 per cent in the last

decade all over India. Only 179 vultures were observed in Population Survey Report

in seven districts of the State. From 2001 onwards, the population of white backed

vultures had decreased from 54 in 2001 to 33 in 2002 and only 11 in 2003 showing a

decline of 81 per cent just in two years. Similarly, the population of Slender billed

vultures had significantly decreased from 13 in 2002 to only 3 in 2003, a decline of 77

per cent. It was noticed that no concrete steps had been taken by the department for

protection and conservation breeding of vultures.

The issue of lack of due attention for these important project proposals on time was

also discussed (May 2006) with the Principal Secretary, who stated that the funding

of project proposals was at the discretion of funding agencies and a consolidated

project of Rs 20 crore stood already committed (September 2001) for funding by

NHPC, covering endangered species including pheasants in the State. The reply is

not tenable as funds were committed by the NHPC for funding during September

2001 and steps should have been taken on time for proper utilisation of these funds.

3.4.14 Delay in submission of project reports resulting in non-utilisation of funds

The Government of India, while according approval (September 2001) for diversion

of 87.795 hectares of forest land for Parvati Hydro Electric Project Stage-II (Kullu

district) to NHPC, earmarked Rs 15.40 crore for “Conservation of flora and fauna in

and around the Great Himalayan National Park, Shamshi” and Rs 20 crore for

“Conservation of endangered species”. The funds to be provided by NHPC were to

be utilised for the conservation of endangered species, afforestation and special

habitat improvement projects. It was noticed that the project reports prepared

(January 2005) by the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun were sent to the State

Government by the Pr. CCF for comments/suggestions in March 2005 and October

2005. These projects were deemed to have been accepted by the State Government if

no comments/suggestions were received by 14 November 2005. In the meantime,

NHPC deposited only Rs 2.75 crore out of their share of Rs 20 crore (November

2001: Rs 1 crore and January 2003: Rs 1.75 crore). These funds were utilised by the

department during 2001-2006 on purchase of equipment, consultancy charges,

repairs and management of works, etc., instead of conservation of endangered

species.

Thus, abnormal delay in preparation of detailed projects resulted in non-utilisation of

the committed funds on conservation of flora and fauna and endangered species.

3.4.15 Wildlife protection

3.4.15.1 Non-protection of animals from poaching and illicit trade

The main threat to wildlife in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is from

poaching and illicit trade in animals and their body parts.

It was noticed that an anti-poaching network had not been created by the

department. Ten cases of poaching were detected during 2001-2006. Of these, only

one case was decided, seven cases were pending in the Courts and two cases were

still pending with the police for investigation.

The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the proposal to equip the forest staff

with arms and ammunition was under the active consideration of the Government.

3.4.15.2 Operation of rights/concessions and other illegal/prohibited

activities in wildlife protected areas

The Supreme Court‟s order of February 2000 prohibits removal of dead, dying,

diseased trees and grass from any national park and wildlife sanctuary (protected

areas). Any non-forestry activity, felling of trees, removal of biomass, miscellaneous

construction activities, etc., in the protected areas were thus not permissible. The

following cases of non-compliance were noticed in audit:

(a) In eight forest divisions and National Park, Shamshi, involving 20 wildlife

sanctuaries

, 3,774 trees of different types and species (standing volume: 12,450.781

cubic metres) valued at Rs 17.18 crore at market rates were sanctioned for timber

distribution (TD) to the local people during 2001-2006 in violation of the orders of

the Supreme Court. The concerned DFOs stated (December 2005 and March 2006)

that the TD was granted to the local right holders as per their recorded rights in the

settlement reports.

The reply is not tenable as removal of trees under TD was allowed in violation of the

orders of Supreme Court issued in February 2000.

(b) In National Park, Shamshi, 29 deodar trees (standing volume: 111 cubic metres)

were sanctioned (2002-2003) by the Conservator of Forests (National Park), Shamshi

under TD. The concerned Block Officer however, marked oversize trees involving

standing volume of 140.40 cubic metres, resulting in removal of excess volume of

29.40 cum of deodar timber valued at Rs 7.11 lakh. Besides, one deodar tree

comprising standing volume of

8.80 cum valued at Rs 2.13 lakh was fraudulently marked by the Block Officer in the

name of a right holder who had, in fact, not applied for the grant of trees. The

Government had, therefore, been put to a loss of Rs 9.24 lakh.

The Conservator of Forests (National Park), Shamshi stated that a departmental

enquiry was in progress. The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the matter

would be looked into.

3.4.15.3 Encroachments in wildlife areas

In five wildlife divisions, National Park, Shamshi and Pin Valley National Park,

Kaza, 1081 cases of encroachment involving an area of 435.051 hectares (value: Rs

21.75 crore) had been detected in 11 wildlife sanctuaries20

. The cases were being dealt

by the concerned DFOs/CFs within the powers vested in them as Revenue

Collectors, but the encroachments had not been vacated.

The Principal Secretary stated (May 2006) that the matter would be looked into.

3.4.15.4 Forest offences by resorting to illicit felling of trees in wildlife areas

According to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, felling of trees in any protected area is an

offence.

In six divisions

and National Park, Shamshi involving 14 wildlife sanctuaries, 786

deodar and kail trees (standing volume: 333.905 cum) valued at Rs 56.95 lakh at

market rates were illicitly felled (2001-2006) in 279 cases in the wildlife protected

areas. Of the above, 81.382 cum of timber valued at Rs 20.97 lakh was seized in 86

cases. It was noticed that only three cases were taken to Court and five were

registered with the police. The remaining cases were pending with the concerned

divisions. Thus, failure to detect illicit felling and seizing the timber resulted in loss

of Rs 46.77 lakh (including sales tax) to the State Government.


3.4.15.5 Unauthorised construction of roads in protected areas

Destruction or exploitation of habitation of protected areas is prohibited. In seven

wildlife sanctuaries under the control of five forest divisions, Municipal Corporation,

Shimla and Pin Valley National Park, Kaza, nine motorable and one jeepable road

(length: 33.945 kilometres) were constructed between 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 by

seven Executive Engineers of the Public Works Department. Sanctuary area of

12.834 hectares (value: Rs 64.17 lakh) was destroyed in the process. Besides

adversely affecting wildlife, this was in violation of the provisions of the Forest

(Conservation), Act, 1980, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and orders of the Supreme

Court of India. Two Public Works divisions (Baijnath and Mandi) were also

responsible for illicit felling of 270 trees and damages to the nurseries and saplings,

etc., to the extent of Rs 33.91 lakh, the bills of which had not been acknowledged by

the concerned divisions.

Of the above ten cases, only two cases pertaining to two roads were challenged in the

Court and no action was taken in the remaining eight cases.


3.4.15.6 Illegal grazing in protected areas

Grazing in parks/sanctuaries by any livestock is prohibited. In seven divisions,

National Park, Shamshi and Pin Valley National Park, Kaza, 528 annual permits

were issued to the migratory graziers for the livestock population of 1,38,627 in

1,974.61 sq kms of the protected area

involving 21 wildlife sanctuaries and Pin Valley National Park, Kaza. The grant of

permits and failure to control the grazing was in violation of the orders of the

Supreme Court. The concerned DFOs and Conservator of Forests stated that the

grazing permits were issued as per the recorded rights of these graziers in the

settlement reports.


However, the Pr. CCF stated (September 2006) that the Chief Conservator of Forests

(CFs) concerned had been asked (June-July 2006) to explain the reasons for violation

of the Supreme Court orders but their replies were awaited (September 2006).

3.4.16 Research, evaluation, monitoring and training

The department had not established any centre for research and monitoring to

facilitate evaluation of basic data on animal and floral census, eco-analysis and

documentation of flora and fauna for continuous planning and management. Also, no

evaluation of the programme was got conducted from any outside agency.

It was also noticed in audit that the activities were not monitored effectively at the

level of Principal Secretary and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Inspection

schedules had been prescribed only upto the level of range officers. The monitoring

of periodical returns and inspection notes were confined only upto Circle level.

The staff posted in the divisions lacked adequate knowledge of laws and legal

procedures. The Department admitted that several cases of wildlife and forest

offences had failed in the courts of law, with the accused going scotfree. It was also

noticed that no specific training in wildlife management was imparted to the staff.

3.4.17 Conclusion

The objectives of protecting, developing and scientifically managing wildlife in the

protected areas was not fully achieved due to the inability of the department to tackle

the problems of biotic and human interference in the protected areas. Intention

notifications for creation of wildlife sanctuaries/national parks were issued without

considering the ground realities and major wetlands identified for conservation had

not been declared as protected areas. Management plans, which were required to be

completed by 2002 had not been approved as of May 2006 and regular census of all

the animals and birds in the wildlife area had not been conducted.


The control of all the notified protected areas should vest with the wildlife wing of

the department to ensure proper development and scientific management of wildlife

sanctuaries.

Preparation of long term management plans for systematic and scientific

development of all the national parks and sanctuaries need to be ensured.

Time bound measures need to be taken to relocate human settlements from the

wildlife areas so as to provide protection to the wildlife fauna and flora against biotic

and human interference.

Proposals for rationalisation of boundaries should be considered without delay and

decisions taken well in time. Project plans should be prepared with appropriate

scientific and technical inputs.

Selection of villages under watershed projects should be prioritized based on

the percentage of wasteland.

An appropriate range over and under the prescribed optimum size of 500 ha

should be specified to limit the size of watersheds.

Different categories of works should be carried out in prescribed sequence by

adopting ridge to valley strategy and as per prescribed percentages.

Activities should be co-ordinated with the Agriculture Department to prevent

overlapping and for a comprehensive approach to watershed development.

These recommendations were discussed in the exit conference (September 2006) and

the Government agreed to take necessary action.

Performance audit of conservation of Wildlife in National Parks and Sanctuaries, Chhattisgarh

Finaincial management

The plan funds for development works for wildlife conservation were obtained from

four streams. GOI provided cent per cent Central assistance for specific items of non-

recurring expenditure and for certain items of recurring expenditure under the

Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) 'Development of National Parks & Sanctuaries',

'Eco-Development around National Parks and Sanctuaries' and 'Project Tiger and

Eco-Development" in tiger reserve. For other items, 50 per cent of recurring

expenditure was to be provided by GOI for NPs whereas the State Government had

to provide 50 per cent matching share. A State Plan Scheme “Conservation of

wildlife and Development" was launched in 2005-06. The State Government

provided funds for non-plan expenditure. All the funds were provided through the

State Budget.

3.5.2.1 Short-utilisation of funds

The Department failed to utilise Rs.12.42 crore (47 per cent) under plan during 2001-

02 to 20006. It was observed that in seven PAs, of the total approved amount of

Rs.162.25 lakh, Government of India had not released balance of Rs.41.22 lakh for

the year 2004-05 due to non/delayed submission of UCs for the first release. Director

GGDNP, Baikunthpur furnished UCs to the GOI for Rs.25.62 lakh, against actual

utilization of Rs.12.40 lakh. Utilisation included carry forward amount of Rs.3000

from 2001-02, however, the detailed accounts were not made available.

3.5.3 Programme management

3.5.3.1 Budget provision for wild life

The State Government made a budget provision of Rs. 1556.28 crore for the Forest

Department of which a meagre share of Rs.54.40 crore (3.50 per cent) was earmarked

for wild life conservation in PAs during 2001-06. The Indian Board of Wild life

recommended (September 1985) that 15 per cent of the funds allocated to the Forest

Department in the State budget be earmarked for wild life wing. Out of the total

provision for wild life conservation and protection, only Rs.26.25 crore (48 per cent)

was for plan activities. Most of this plan outlay was from Central funds and the State

had provided for Rs. 4.62 crore in five years out of its own sources for 14 PAs for

wildlife conservation. Thus wild life conservation and protection activity had been

accorded low priority by the State Government. The Department did not furnish any

reason for the low budgetary allocation to wild life conservation.

Management Plans for Project Tiger were not approved by the State Government

and the prescribed framework for monitoring and evaluating wildlife conservation

and protection was not functional as detailed in paragraph 3.5.7.

3.5.3.2 Survey, Demarcation, Notification and Rehabilitation

As per Sections 18 and 35 of the Wild life (Protection) Act,1972, as soon as the

Government notifies an area as a sanctuary or a National Park, its boundaries are to

be surveyed, demarcated and consolidated for the purposes of protection,

propagation and development of wild life. In the five test checked PAs Rs.22.82 lakh

had been spent on demarcation. It had been completed in two PAs3

and 48 per cent of

the total area of three PAs had not been demarcated despite issue of preliminary

notification between June 1975 and August 2001.

The final notification has not been issued so far for any of the 14 PAs. The reason

was attributed as non-settlement of the rights of the villagers within the

Park/Sanctuary area.

As per Section 27 of the Wild life (Protection) Act 1972, entry into and residence in

the wild life areas should not adversely affect the protection, propagation and

development of wild life. The human habitations in parks were required to be

rehabilitated outside the protected areas. In five test checked PAs there were 146

villages, 4982 families with total population of 31552 residing in the core area of

PAs, causing biotic pressure which adversely affected the protection and

conservation of wild life.

GOI provided Rs.6 lakh in 2003-04 for shifting of six families from GGD NP but no

expenditure was incurred due to non - settlement of rights of villagers in the park. In

Achankmar wild life Sanctuary first initiative was taken in September 2002, 27 years

after notification. Proposal for rehabilitating six villages with 249 families having a

population of 753 was sent to CCF (Wild life) in February 2006. Further action in

this regard was pending as intimated (March 2006) by DFO, Bilaspur. In

Barnawapara Sanctuary proposal for relocation of three villages of 355 families for

the first time had been sent by DFO to CF in January 2006. Thus that the

rehabilitation of villages was neglected as no initiatives were taken since issue of

preliminary notifications in these PAs.

3.5.3.3 Encroachment of Wild life areas

As per Sections 27 and 35 (8) of the Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972, no person shall

enter or reside in the Sanctuary or a Park except in accordance with the conditions of

a permit granted under Section 28 of the Act. The Government of India made (May

1996) it clear that regularisation of encroachment of wild life areas was not

permissible under the Act and as such the State Government was required to

evacuate all such encroachments expeditiously. An area of 136.04 ha. wildlife area

was encroached in Achanakmar Sanctuary for the purpose of agriculture during

2000-01 to 2004-05. Department had evacuated only 4.205 ha.(3 per cent) area in

2001-02. The DFO stated (March 2006) that the cases were pending in the court of

law. In most of the cases stay has not been granted and as such the State

Government may take suitable action for evacuation in consultation with the Law

Department.

3.5.3.4 Livestock population in protected areas

Section 35(7) of the Wild life Protection Act, 1972 prohibits grazing activity in

Parks/Sanctuaries. There was livestock population of 769034

in 2405

villages within

and around the PAs. Measures to control grazing such as construction of Cattle-

proof trenches or fencing were not undertaken by the concerned authorities. In

Barnawapara sanctuary 12.6 Km cattle proof trenches were made as of (March 2006)

but there was no fencing. Absence of adequate protection measures to check illegal

grazing by the large livestock population would lead to depletion of the fodder base

of herbivores in PAs.

3.5.4 Protection measures

3.5.4.1 Communication Network

Wireless network, forest roads and vehicles within the national parks/ sanctuaries

are the means of communication for protection of wild life and habitat against

poaching, encroachment and illegal activities. The expenditure on establishing

communication networks was Rs.1.45 crore during 2001-06. Most of this amount

was spent on construction of forest roads (Rs.1.04 crore) and purchase of vehicles

(Rs.20.77 lakh). The expenditure on wireless communication i.e. towers, stations

and sets was only Rs.19.02 lakh.

In Barnawapara and Achanakmar SANs wireless sets were in operation however,

they were not available in Tomar Pingla SAN and Indravati. GGD NP had 12

wireless handsets and these were given to the district police, Korea in September

2003 for the Assembly Elections 2003 and were returned only in March 2006.

Director, GGDNP stated (April 2006) that due to naxal problems in the park area no

wireless sets had been distributed and would be done within three days. It was not

clear how wireless sets would be distributed within such a short period.

Purchase of vehicle

In ITR, Jagdalpur one Toyota Qualis and two Mahendra Bolero were purchased

during 2002-03 for Rs.13.07 lakh against administrative approval (July 2002) of

Rs.9.75 lakh accorded by GOI, MoEF for two Gypsy and one Tata Sumo vehicles

for the "Project Tiger, Toyota Qualis was allotted (January 2004) to Minister of

Forest, Government of CG, Raipur.

The Field Director stated (December 2005) that the cost of purchase increased due to

increase in price of vehicles and Toyata Qualis was transferred to the Forest Minister

for touring in interior forest areas as per orders of Additional Principal Chief

Conservator of Forest dated 06 January 2004. The reply was not tenable as costlier

vehicles than those approved by GOI were purchased.

3.5.4.2 Anti-poaching operations

The main threat to wild life is from poaching and illicit trading in animals and their

body parts. Of the five test checked PAs, in Achankmar SAN anti-poaching squad

had been formed and in 2000-01 an amount of Rs.1 lakh was incurred on formation

& patrolling of antipoaching squad but no arms and ammunition had been provided.

Seven poaching cases reported during 200001 to 2004-05 were pending in the court.

In Barnawapara four anti-poaching squads comprising four members per squad were

formed in 2004-05 although there were reports of five poaching cases during 2000-

2003. They were also not provided any arms and ammunitions. In Tomar Pingla

SAN, Indravati NP and GGD NP anti-poaching squads had not been formed and

only four guns were available for protection of 2799.086 sq.km park area of Indravati

NP. These guns were also deposited in the police stations. In case of Tomar Pingla

SAN four guns were deposited in South Surguja Forest Division (January 2003).

Night vision binoculars were not available anywhere. Thus the anti-poaching squads

wherever formed did not have any specialised equipment to handle any poaching.

Thus antipoaching operations were neglected. Reply of the Government is awaited

as of September 2006.

3.5.4.3 Fire protection

Fire is a serious threat to flora and fauna of PAs. Prevention and control of fire forms

an important part of the management strategies in the park/sanctuary. During the

period 2001-05, there were 138 cases of fire in five PAs affecting 2318 hectare.

During the period 2000-03, no amount was sanctioned for fire protection in

Achanakmar sanctuary and Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1.50 lakh was sanctioned during the

year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. World Wild life Fund (WWF) provided 200

fire beaters to Achanakmar sanctuary in 2004-05. However, number of fire cases and

area affected increased during these two years. Reply of the Government is awaited

as of August 2006.

3.5.4.4 Non- availability of veterinary facilities

It was essential to establish a veterinary health care centre within a park or sanctuary

for treating wild animals. Doctors and staff were not available in any of the test

checked parks and sanctuaries. Posts of veterinary doctors were not sanctioned in

any of the PAs.

As per Section 33 of the Act immunization of livestock kept in or within five

kilometers of a park/sanctuary was essential to curb unnatural mortality. The total

expenditure on immunization in five PAs test checked during 2001-06 was only

Rs.6.74 lakh.

3.5.4.5 Wild life management training

Proper training was to be imparted in wild life management. In five test checked PAs

out of 176 frontline staff (foresters and forest guards) only 29 had been trained during

2001-06 on forestry. There was no separate training module for wildlife conservation.

3.5.4.6 Population of wild life

A review of population census of wild life in various PAs in Chhattisgarh revealed

that the number of some animals increased in some PAs and in other cases numbers

remained almost constant.

The wild buffalo, which is the State animal, had become extinct in Bhoramdeo

sanctuary and given the steep decline in number in other sanctuaries, some other

animals were in the risk of following suit. Details of number of different wild animals

in various PAs is given in Appendix 3.5.

Indravati NP had reported an increase in tiger population from 19 in 2001 to 276

in

2005. Audit scrutiny showed that Rs. 1.20 lakh (8.69 per cent) was spent on tiger

census against total sanction of Rs. 13.80 lakh during 2001-05. In 2000-01 and 2001-

02, despite availability of Rs.1.50 lakh and Rs.0.50 lakh respectively, no amount was

spent on census and the census was purportedly conducted without any additional

expenditure. The pugmark tracing sheets7

, plaster casts etc. were made available to

audit only for the year 2004-05. Field Director, ITR stated (March‟06) that these

items relating to the years 20012003 had been sent elsewhere for a seminar and

would be produced to audit as and when available. Even copies of tracings were not

available. In the absence of this basic evidence, the authenticity and accuracy of the

census figures was not verifiable.

3.5.4.7 Wild life mortality

The Project Tiger Directorate instructed (September 2001) that half-yearly mortality

survey be conducted in tiger habitats to determine the age/sex specific mortality of

tigers and other wild animals and to furnish a report in this regard. The records of

Indravati NP did not indicate evidence of any such surveys during the period from

2000-01 to 2004-05. The Field Director intimated (April 2006) that no case of tiger

mortality was reported during the period from 2000-01 to 2004-05. No reports in this

respect were sent to Project Tiger Directorate. In Barnawapara Sanctuary 33 wild life

mortality (deer, bison, sambhar) were reported during 2001 to 2005.

3.5.5 Human resources

Manpower was an important aspect in implementing developmental scheme,

protection and conservation of wild life in PAs. Out of total sanctioned posts of

11023 for the Forest Department, 612 posts (5.6 per cent) were earmarked for wild life

wing of the Department. Against 612 sanctioned posts 105 posts (17 per cent) were

vacant as on 31 March 2006.

The Ranger was responsible for actual implementation of scheme and executing

ground works in the field. In five8

PAs no Rangers had been posted. The beat

Guard/Forester worked at the operational level and was responsible for keeping

watch and providing all basic information with respect to activities in PAs. Against

sanctioned post of 335 Beat Guard/Forester there were 90 vacancies (27 per cent).

As large number of them were more than 45 years old. Since the job involved

considerable foot patrolling, the age profile was not conducive to the nature of the

job. Thus the manpower was inadequately equipped to handle the multifarious

challenges of conservation activities.

3.5.6 Other points

3.5.6.1 Fraudulent expenditure

Test check (January 2006) of records of Dy.Director, ITR, Bijapur revealed that:

In construction/repair of 75 pucca munaras9

for boundary demarcation, the cement

used for the construction/repair was found to have been purchased after the

completion of work. This was not possible and there was indication of fraud in

expenditure of Rs.0.75 lakh on these works.

Fraudulent expenditure of Rs.1.34 lakh was incurred on payment of wages. Payment

was purportedly made to labourers who were shown to have worked simultaneously

on the same day at different locations.

Dy.Director, ITR, Bijapur stated (January 2006) that matter would be examined and

intimated to audit.

3.5.6.2 Faulty measurement

During 2003-04 Jhiriyas10

were constructed at a cost of Rs.3.27 lakh to provide

drinking water to wild animals.

Test check (January 2006) of records of Dy. Director, Indravati Tiger Reserve,

Bijapur showed that Jhiriyas were constructed in four ranges11

having dimensions

approximated to a well from which animals can not drink water on their own.

Hence, payment of Rs.3.27 lakh for such construction was inaccurate and the matter

was required to be investigated.

3.5.6.3 Irregular felling of Karra trees

Test check (May 2006) of records of Barnawapara SAN revealed that Karra trees

were felled in 50 hectare area in compartment nos. 161, 163,164 under CBO (Cut

Back Operation) work during 26 September 2005 to 7 November 2005.

It was stated that 19900 poles and 355 fuel stacks from such felling were distributed

free of charge among people living in the sanctuary for their bonafide use. The exact

number of trees felled and their dimensions were not intimated to audit. DFO,

Raipur replied that "Karra CBO" work was executed according to approved APO of

2005-06.

Reply of DFO was not acceptable. The defined scope of CBO work is limited

dressing of existing stumps to regenerate coppice shoots and does not include felling

of trees. There was nothing in the APO to indicate that trees would be felled. Thus

the felling was carried out irregularly without any formal felling plan and its disposal

by distribution to villagers was not verifiable. The volume of timber removed and

value of the same was also not known and the matter needs to be investigated.

3.5.7 Monitoring and Evlauation

Framework

3.5.7.1 The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 provided that the State

Government, shall, within a period of six months from the date of commencement of

amended act (September, 2003) constitute a State Board for Wild Life with the Chief

Minister of the State as Chairman and as per Section 7 of the Act the Board shall

meet at least twice a year. The Board was constituted in October 2004 and met only

once in July 2005 after formation.

3.5.7.2 Under section 64 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Government of

Chhattisgarh had not made any Act or rules as of July 2006 and had adopted the

Act/rules12

made by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. However, it was not clear

whether the act/rules had been formally adopted as orders/notification was not

produced nor date of such orders/ notification was intimated to audit.

3.5.7.3 According to the provision of section 33B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972, the State Government shall constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of

the Chief Wildlife Warden or his nominee not below the rank of Conservator of

Forests (CF) as its head and shall include a member of the State Legislature within

whose constituency the sanctuary is situated and other representatives of non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) etc., for members. Addl. PCCF (Wildlife)

intimated that proposal had been sent (December 2004) to the State Government for

notifying and the same was pending (July 2006).

3.5.7.4 As per the directive (September 2001) of the Government of India, Ministry

of Environment and Forests (Project Tiger), a 'Monitoring and evaluation

Committee' at the level of State Government, had to be constituted so as to review

the progress and implementation of the project with a view to evaluate its

performance and reports to be submitted periodically. The State Government

formed (February 2005) the Committee but scheduled meetings in August 2005 and

January 2006 could not be held due to non- availability of GOI representative and

the Committee had not met so far.

Thus various bodies required to be in place for monitoring and execution at different

levels were either not set up or had just started functioning. All these bodies were

required to be formed/energized for according greater priority to conservation

measures.

3.5.8 Conclusion

The objective of conserving wild life and its habitat was accorded very low priority.

There was under utilization of funds, final notification had not been issued for any

PAs, demarcation and rehabilitation was very slow, communication network was

very limited. Anti poaching operations were largely neglected. There were no

veterinary services in PAs, forest guards were untrained and old and the wildlife

population had also shown a steep decline in some of the PAs. Various bodies for

monitoring and execution at various levels had either not been set up or are

functioning perfunctorily.


Budgetary allocation for wildlife conservation should be reviewed to accord greater

priority to this activity.

Demarcation of boundaries should be completed expeditiously for all PAs.

Government should take suitable action in consultation with the Law Department

for early evacuation of villagers in PAs.

Communication network should be strengthened.

The reasons for steep decline in population of some animals in some of the PAs

should be examined and appropriate short term and long term measures taken for

their conservation.

Prescribed framework for monitoring and evaluation of implementation of various

activities in PAs should be made fully functional.

The above points were brought to the notice of Government (August 2006); the reply

has not been received.

Performance audit of Wildlife preservation under Centrally sponsored scheme, Arunachal Pradesh

Highlights

The objective of preservation of wild life in accordance with the Wild Life Protection Act,

1972 and National Wild Life Action Plan (NWLAP) 2002-16 was not achieved in

Arunachal Pradesh in full due to the absence of financial control, delay in formulation of

Management Plans (MP), State Government‟s inability to tackle the encroachment

problems and lack of planning and prioritisation of preservation/conservation measures.

3.2.1 Introduction

The State of Arunachal Pradesh (AP), rich in forest and wildlife, has 68847 square

kilometres (sq km) of forest cover area. The State Government notified two Projects

Tiger (PT)8

, one Elephant Reserve (ER)9

, eight Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS)10

and one

National Park (NP)11

covering 11420.485 sq km (out of 68847 sq km) spread over ten

out of 16 districts12

as Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) between June 1978 and

June 2002.

The main objective of the schemes is to conserve flora and fauna with specific stress

on maintenance of viable population of endangered species, particularly tiger with its

prey base and habitat for scientific, economic, aesthetic, cultural and ecological

values. Functioning of the schemes is governed under the provisions of the Wildlife

Protection Act (WLP) 1972, besides, instructions issued from time to time by the

Central and the State Boards of wildlife and the Union Ministry of Environment and

Forest (MOEF).


The Environment and Forest Department is responsible for undertaking the activities

relating to wildlife preservation in the State.


The review was aimed at ascertaining:

the effectiveness and adequacy of the Wildlife Protection Act, Rules and Procedures

framed thereunder in management of Protected Area (PA);

the economy and efficiency in functioning of the PAs particularly in areas of financial

management, programme management, conservation of flora and fauna, protection

measures, promotional activities in the PA and manpower management; and

the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation.

3.2.4 Scope of audit

Performance review of wildlife preservation activities was conducted through a test

check of the records of the Principal Secretary and PCCF and the CWLW, Itanagar

including the records of six selected PAs out of 12 PAs for the years 2001-02 to 2005-

06 during April – May 2006.

3.2.5 Audit criteria

Audit objective and findings were benchmarked against the following criteria:

Provisions of Wildlife Protection Act 1992 and National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-16;

Instructions and guidelines of the Central and State Boards of Wildlife and MOEF;

and

Prescribed monitoring mechanism.

3.2.6 Audit methodology

An entry conference was held on 30 December 2005 with the Secretary, Department

of Environment and Forest wherein the audit objectives, scope, criteria and

methodology was explained.

Namdapha and Pakke PT being flagship programmes of wildlife conservation and

Kameng ER being the single project in the State were selected for 100 per cent

coverage. Eagle nest, Itanagar and Tale WLS were selected for test check out of the

balance nine PAs through random sampling.

Audit methodology involved issue of questionnaires and analysis of reports, project

reports, including examination of procedures/data in respect of MPs, APOs,

demand, allotment and utilisation of funds under CSS.

An exit conference was held in August 2006 with the Secretary, Department of

Environment and Forest and replies of the Government/Department have been

incorporated in the review where appropriate.

3.2.7 Audit findings

Performance Audit of the Department revealed that due to delay in release of funds

by two to nine months, the Managers of PAs were deprived of central assistance of

Rs.4.50 crore. The MPs of 11 out of 12 PAs though prepared were neither approved

by the State Government nor submitted to the GOI and MP in respect of Kameng

ER was not prepared. Besides, failure to declare 10 km area around the PA as eco-

fragile zone adversely affected the wildlife habitats. Also, a fine of Rs.4.22 crore was

leviable on 462 people encroaching 131 hectares of land in core zone of NPT but

neither any fine was levied nor were the people evicted.

3.2.8 Project formulation and planning

Feasibility report justifying continuance of the schemes during Tenth Plan was to be

prepared by Divisional Officers based on surveys/studies showing

modifications/amendments if any, in the original project reports and get it approved

from the GOI.

No Manager of PAs except one (Namdapha Project Tiger) prepared any such

proposal. The schemes for wildlife preservation were continued in Tenth Plan period

without framing any programme duly approved by the GOI. Thus, no planning was

in place for implementing wildlife conservation during Tenth Plan period.

3.2.9 Management Plans

MP is an instrument that ensures policy based action for scientific management of

PAs as against the personal approach and casual action that may not fall in the ambit

of priority. Besides, the MP is an institutional mechanism to guide the Manager in

management practice and proper monitoring with reference to such plan. The

Supreme Court of India13

directed in February 2000 that conservation activities in

PAs shall not be undertaken unless the MP is approved by the GOI.

The Managers of 1114

out of 12 PAs submitted MPs to the State Government

between July 1995 and September 2004 for approval of detailed programmes of

conservation activities to be carried out for scientific management of PAs during five

to ten year periods falling between 1997-98 and 2008-09. The State Government did

not approve the MP nor was it submitted to the GOI for approval. No reason was

recorded for doing so. The MP in respect of the other PA15

was not prepared till date.

Thus, in the absence of an approved MP, conservation activities in each PA were

carried out in an adhoc manner without prioritisation, apart from violating the

Supreme Court‟s directives.

3.2.10 Annual Plan of Operation (APO)

The annual programme of wildlife conservation activities in each PA is sanctioned

by the MOEF, by way of APO. The APO is required to be submitted by the State

Government to the GOI for approval before commencement of the financial year so

that the seasonal works could be taken up at the beginning of the financial year.

It was observed that the State Government submitted APOs to the MOEF in respect

of 12 PAs belatedly between May and July each year without any recorded reason.

Consequently, there was delay ranging between 1 and 10 months in approval of

APOs and release of funds by the MOEF as tabulated below:

Year Date of submission

of APOs

Date of sanction of funds by the

GOI

Funds sanctioned/ released

2001-

02

Between May and

July

Between May 01 and February 02 4.86

2002-

03

Between June and

July

Between July 02 and March 03 2.85

2003-

04

Between May and

June


2004-

05

Between May and

July


2005-

06

Between May and

June

Between June 05 and March 06 4.80

Total 20.05

Source: APOs, GOI’s sanction orders and information furnished by the Departments.

Further, in four out of 12 PAs16

the scheme could not be implemented as no funds

was released between 2001-02 and 2004-05 for delayed finalisation of APOs.

3.2.11 Targets and achievements

The Managers of 1217

PAs set financial and physical targets in the form of APOs

after survey and investigation duly supported by detailed estimates of works in

anticipation of financial assistance from the Central and the State Governments

under CSS. The State Government, however, sanctioned and released funds by

reducing the financial targets. Inspite of that, the shortfall in achievement of financial

targets ranged from 30 to 83 per cent during 2001-02 to 2005-06 as tabulated below:

Table – 3.3 (Rupees in crore)

Year Targets Achievements Shortfall (-)

2001-02 6.56 4.58 (-) 1.98 (30)

2002-03 9.66 1.87 (-) 7.79 (81)

2003-04 11.99 2.36 (-) 9.63 (80)

2004-05 12.70 2.71 (-) 9.99 (79)

2005-06 23.93 4.03 (-) 19.90 (83)

Sources: APOs and information furnished by the Department. Figures

within the bracket represent percentage of shortfall

The shortfall in achievement of physical targets in respect of 77 important

components of wildlife conservation in six18

(out of 12) PAs test checked ranged from

13 to 100 per cent during the five years ending 31 March 2006 as shown in Appendix

– XXVII. Thus, there was consistent shortfalls in achievement of both financial and

physical targets leading to non fulfilment of the objectives of the scheme in all the

years. The Government stated (August 2006) that adequate steps would be taken to

achieve the targets in future.

3.2.12 Financial management and controls

3.2.12.1 Funding pattern

The cost of non recurring items such as infrastructure and eco-development etc. in

and around the PA is fully funded by the MOEF, while the cost of recurring items

like maintenance of assets erected in each PT and NP is shared equally by the

MOEF and the State Government.

3.2.12.2 Budget grant and actuals

It was observed that release of funds compared to the final grants varied from 15 to

34 per cent (excess) in all the years except in 2001-02 when the short release of funds

was 10 per cent. Besides, there were persistent savings against release of funds ranging

from 6 to 40 per cent in all the years as tabulated below:


Year

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

Total

Final budget grant

Actual release

5.43 4.86 2.17

2.85 2.94 3.93

3.14 3.61 3.85

4.80 17.53 20.05

Excess (+)/Less (-) release

Actual (-) 0.57 (10) 4.58

(+) 0.68 (31) 1.87 (+) 0.99

(34) 2.36 (+) 0.47 (15) 2.71

(+) 0.95 (25) 4.03 (+) 2.52

15.55

Expenditure Short fall (-)/

Excess (+) over final budget

grant Saving (-) against actual

release (-) 0.85 (16) (-) 0.28 (6) (-)

0.30 (14) (-) 0.98 (34) (-) 0 58 (20)

(-) 1.57 (40) (-) 0.43 (14) (-) 0.90

(25) (+) 0.18 (5) (-) 0.77 (16) (-)

1.98 (-) 4.50

Sources: Detailed Appropriation accounts and Information furnished by the Department.

Figures in bracket represent percentage.

The release of funds and expenditure thereagainst were not in conformity with

budgetary allocation in all the years, indicating that the budget was not framed on

realistic basis.

The reason for such variations though called for were not received.

3.2.12.3 Discrepancy between expenditure figures of Appropriation Accounts and

Departmental records

It was noticed that the Wildlife Wing of Forest Department did not reconcile the

expenditure figures under CSS (PAs) with those of the Appropriation


Expenditure as per

detailed Appropriation

Accounts Year

Expenditure as per

Departmental records

Difference compared to Appropriation

Accounts Excess(+)/Less(-)

4.56 2001-02 2002-03

2003-04

4.58 (+) 0.02

2.04 1.87 (-) 0.17

2.39 2.36 () 0.03

2.71 2004-05 2005-06

Total

2.71 Nil

4.16 4.03 () 0.13

15.86 15.55 (-) 0.31

Sources: Detailed Appropriation Accounts and information furnished by the Department

The reason for discrepancies had not been analysed or stated by the Government.

3.2.12.4 Delay in release of funds

As per the recommendations of the 36th

meeting of the Steering Committee and

directives of the MOEF, in May 2000, the State Government is to release funds to

the Managers of PA within six weeks from the date of release of funds by the MOEF.

Further, the Supreme Court of India19

directed in February 2005 that the State

Government should release funds to the field formations within 15 days of sanction

by the MOEF so that the amount of assistance is fully utilised for the purpose for

which it was granted. The amount sanctioned and released by the MOEF and the

State Government and expenditure incurred thereagainst as per the departmental

records during 2001-06 were as under:

Table – 3.6

It was however, noticed that the MOEF sanctioned and released funds between May

and March and the State Government sanctioned and released funds belatedly

between November and March in each financial year without any recorded reason.

The extent of delay in release of funds ranged from two to nine months from the date

of release of funds by the MOEF. Further, the State Government released funds

through monthly Letter of Credit (LOC) system without linking it to the periodical

requirement for conservation works. Thus, the funds were not fully utilised for the

purpose for which these were granted leading to savings in all the years violating the

Hon‟ble Apex Court‟s orders. Besides, the PAs lost the benefit of central assistance of

Rs.4.50 crore in the last five years.

The Government stated (August 2006) that the matter would be taken up with the

concerned Department for release of funds in time.

3.2.12.5 Non creation of trust funds out of revenue generated

As per National Wild Life Action Plan (NWLAP) 2002-16 all tourism receipts and

penalties collected from PAs should go to a local trust fund to be operated by Joint

Committees headed by the PA Manager. 70 and 30 per cent of the funds should be

utilised for community benefit works and for development activities of the PAs

respectively.

It was noticed that revenue amounting to Rs.7.88 lakh (entry fee, room rent etc.) was

collected by the Managers of five PAs21

during the five years ending 31 March 2006

and deposited into Government account through treasury challan instead of creating

local trust funds and depositing the amount therein.

3.2.13 Expenditure from project funds

3.2.13.1 Unauthorised utilisation of project funds

The MOEF directed in August 2000 that an Elephant Reserve (ER) though not a

legal entity under the WLP, Act, 1972 can be notified in the same manner as Tiger

Reserve and Biosphere Reserve. Further, the MOEF directed the State Government

in March 2002 that 60 per cent of Central Assistance (CA) under CSS (PE) should be

utilised for notified ER and 40 per cent should be spent for general elephant

management.

It was noticed that based on GOI‟s approval in March 2002, the State Government

notified Kameng ER as Elephant Reserve in June 2002. This comprised 1892 sq km

falling under the jurisdiction of the DFOs, WLS Division, Seijosa and Khellong

Forest Division, Bhalukpong in East and West Kameng Districts. The Department

kept provision in the draft APO for 200203 to utilise 60 per cent of CA under

CSS(PE) for Kameng ER and 40 per cent for other areas as per the directives of the

GOI. The wild elephant population in Kameng ER was 86, 114 and 230 as per

census reports of 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05 respectively. The census report of

wild elephants in other areas of

3.2.13.3 Misuse of project funds

Whenever any work is to be executed or any material is to be purchased by any

Government Department, relevant records like estimate, sanction order, stock

account, measurement book etc., in support of execution of work and procurement

of materials are required to be maintained by the concerned office. The annual

progress reports of three PAs (out of six23

test checked) revealed that in 13 cases

expenditure of Rs.66.26 lakh was incurred on construction of buildings, roads and

for purchase of materials under CSS between April 2001 and October 2002 as shown

in Appendix – XXVIII.

The Managers of these PAs however, did not maintain records like sanctioned

estimates, tender, work/supply orders, stock accounts, measurement book (MB) in

support of these works executed between April 2001 and March 2003. Further,

inspection report of superior officer of the Department in respect of these works was

not on record except in case of Sl. No. 3 and 8 of the Appendix – XXVIII. The

inspection reports of the Deputy CWLW, Naharlagun (August 2002) and the

CWLW, Itanagar (November 2005) disclosed that the works at Sl. No. 3 and 8 were

also not carried out. Thus the expenditure of Rs.66.26 lakh being fictitious cannot be

ruled out.

The Government stated (August 2006) that the matter had been referred to vigilance

for investigation and result thereof would be intimated to Audit.

3.2.13.4 Unfruitful expenditure

The MOEF allocated Rs.10 lakh under CSS-PT during 1998-99 for construction of

cable suspension bridge over river “Noa Dihing” at Deban in Namdapha Project

Tiger (NPT) to facilitate proper patrolling in northern part of the project. Due to non

utilisation of the funds, the MOEF revalidated the same during 1999-2000 and 2002-

03, still the Department failed to utilise the funds without any recorded reason.

The MOEF again revalidated the unspent amount of Rs.10 lakh and released an

additional amount of Rs.10 lakh (phase I) in June 2003 to execute the work in 2003-

04. The State Government accorded sanction for Rs.20 lakh in March 2004 and

decided to get the work executed through the Executive Engineer (EE), Irrigation

and Flood Control Department (IFCD), Bordumsa at an estimated cost of Rs.97.38

lakh without fixing any time schedule for completion of the work. Though the

MOEF released Rs.20 lakh, the Manager of NPT, without any recorded reason paid

Rs.13.40 lakh only in advance to the EE, IFCD in March 2004. The EE, IFCD

utilised the amount towards survey and purchase of materials like cement, rod and

sausage wire. As of January 2006 the physical progress of the work was nil.

Thereafter, the MOEF did not release any further funds for the work. The State

Government also did not initiate any action to get any funds released from MOEF.

Thus, while the expenditure of Rs.13.40 lakh remained unproductive, non

construction of the suspension bridge adversely restricted the patrolling of NPT.

There were deficiencies in financial management, leading to delay in release of

funds, unauthorised utilisation of funds, misuse of project funds and unfruitful

expenditure under different components of the scheme. There were also instances of

loss of revenue, irregular exemption from permit/entry fee as would be evident from

the observations made in the succeeding paragraphs.

3.2.14 Programme management

3.2.14.1 Project area not encompassed legally

Under Section 35 of the WLP Act, 1972 the State Government shall declare by

notification any area, whether within a WLS or not, as NP. Under the Assam Forest

Regulation 1891 (as adopted by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh) the State

Government by notification in January 1987 declared 177.415 sq km of reserve forest

for addition to the Namdapha Reserve Forests which is used as buffer zone in NPT

since then. The State Government did not notify this area (177.415 sq km) for

inclusion in NPT under the WLP Act 1972 till date. Thus, 177.415 sq km of NPT is

yet to get legal status.

Under the WLP Act, 1972 no alteration of the boundaries of a sanctuary shall be

made by the State Government except on recommendation of the National Board of

Wildlife (NBWL).

The State Government, without recommendation of the NBWL notified in August

1978 that 4353 hectares (43.53 sq km) of Itanagar WLS should be under the

administrative jurisdiction of the Capital Project. The notification is silent about the

Act, under which the area was diverted for non forest purpose. Thus, the diversion of

land (43.53 sq km) was irregular and in violation of the Act.

The Government stated (August 2006) that efforts would be made to regularise the

diversion of land as per rules.

3.2.15 Restoration of degraded habitats outside PAs

3.2.15.1 Non declaration of area outside PAs as ecologically fragile

Under the WLP Act, 1972 and the NWLAP 2002-16 the State Government was to

identify key factors responsible for degradation of habitats including grasslands,

wetland, forests, etc. outside PAs particularly in areas adjacent to PAs. The process

of identification and declaration of areas as eco-sensitive zone for protecting flora

and fauna and their habitats was to be completed by 2004. Further, as per Wildlife

Conservation Strategy 2002 approved in XXIst

meeting of the Indian Board of

Wildlife (IBWL) under the chairmanship of the Hon‟ble Prime Minister, land falling

within 10 km of boundaries of PAs should be declared as ecologically fragile zone.

It was observed that the State Government did not initiate any action either to

identify or to declare any area outside the boundaries of PAs as ecologically fragile

till May 2006 with the result that activities of the populace outside the boundaries

were adversely affecting the wildlife inside the PAs.

3.2.15.2 Adverse impact of construction activities by Kameng Hydro Electric Project

(KHEP) on PAs

Under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the MOEF, in consultation with the State

Government, diverted 710 hectares of forest land falling within 200-400 meters of

boundaries of Pakke PT and Eagle nest WLS in August 2000 for construction of

KHEP. The KHEP started construction of roads, buildings, power house etc. in

areas within close proximity (200-400 mtrs) of boundaries of PAs by mobilising huge

work force and using blasting materials, heavy tools and plants etc. since 2001-02.

Such activities created heavy noise and environment pollution in the area causing

immense damage to the pristine ecosystem including flora and fauna of the adjoining

PAs.

Therefore, in order to improve the conditions, the Manager of the PAs submitted an

estimate of Rs.1.69 crore to the PCCF in April 2006 for taking immediate corrective

measures like growing plantation, restoration of wild life corridor, habitat

enrichment, installation of wireless sets etc. to prevent further damage of flora and

fauna and their habitats in the PAs. The estimate however remained unattended in

PCCF‟s Office. Thus, failure of the State Government to declare eco-fragile area

outside the PAs had a devastating effect on wildlife habitats as protective measures

against noise and environment pollution and preservation of flora and fauna could

not be initiated.

3.2.15.3 Loss of revenue

The MOEF instructed in March 2004 that funds received from any user agency

towards Compensatory Afforestation (CA) charges for diversion of forest land for

non forestry purpose should be kept in the form of fixed deposit (FD) in a

nationalised bank (NB) in the name of the concerned DFO or the Nodal Officer

(Forest Conservation). Further, the MOEF, as per the directions of the Supreme

Court of India (October 2002) issued a notification in April 2004 constituting the CA

Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) for management of money

received towards CA charges. But the CAMPA has remained inoperative and the

CA charges are not being managed as per the GOI‟s notification.

It was noticed that the KHEP paid Rs.6.41 crore towards CA charges to the State

Government for diversion of 710 hectares of forest land for non-forestry purposes

between March 2000 and January 2005. The State Government deposited the

amount into the Forest Remittance head of account and into the Reserve Funds not

bearing interest between May 2000 and March 2005. This resulted in loss of interest

of Rs.46.74 lakh during the period between March 2004 and the date of audit (May

2006) calculated at the rate of interest at 5 and 5.5 per cent per annum as prescribed by

the State Bank of India.

3.2.16 Encroachment

3.2.16.1 Unauthorised occupation of 131 hectares of land in NPT

Under Section 34A of the WLP Act, 1972 read with Section 72C of the Assam

Forest Regulation 1891 (as adopted by Arunachal Pradesh) if any person

unauthorisedly occupies land in a reserve forest in which he has not been allowed to

settle, the Forest Officer shall eject or order him to vacate the land forthwith and

confiscate or destroy any crop raised and any building constructed on such land.

Further, if any person intentionally disobeys such order, he shall be liable to pay

penalty which may extend to Rs.200 and if such disobedience continues, he shall be

liable to pay further fine which may extend to Rs.50 per day during the period of

such breach.

In NPT, since 1995, 462 people of 84 families belonging to the Lishu Community

encroached (April 2001) upon 131 hectares of land in the core zone of the project.

The State Government has not prepared any plan to relocate them outside the PA till

May 2006. However, the Department served eviction notices on the encroachers in

May 2003 but the encroachers have not vacated the land. The presence of Lishues is

not only violative of the Act but is also a serious threat to the tigers and its prey base.

Further, a maximum fine of Rs.4.22 crore24

leviable in these cases was not levied.

The Government stated (August 2006) that action would be initiated to relocate the

encroachers.

3.2.16.2 Unauthorised entry and destruction of Government property in PA

Under the WLP Act, 1972, no person shall enter or destroy any property in a PA

unless a permit is granted by the CWLW in consultation with the State Government

and the State Board of Wildlife.

It was observed that the Border Road Task Force (BRTF) unauthorisedly entered the

Eagle Nest WLS for construction of road and destroyed building valued at Rs.6.60

lakh belonging to the sanctuary without any permit from the CWLW during 2001-

02. On intervention of the CWLW, the BRTF stopped the work and vacated the land

(112.80 hectares) in April 2002. But the Department did not initiate any action to

recover the value of building destroyed by the BRTF.

3.2.17 role of NGOs

3.2.17.1 Non-receipt of financial assistance extended by NGO

The World Wide Fund for Nature India (NGO) extended a package assistance

amounting to Rs.22.17 lakh25

to NPT in June 2000 and requested the State

Government in July 2000 to open a Public Deposit Account (PDA) in favour of the

manager of NPT so that the amount of assistance could be deposited into PDA for

execution of works locally.

It was noticed that the NGO delivered package assistance in kind valued at

Rs.11.5626

lakh in August 2001 and March 2002. The NGO did not release the

balance assistance due to the failure of the State Government to open PDA. This led

to non receipt of further financial assistance of Rs.10.61 lakh.

The Government admitted (August 2006) the facts without explaining the reason for

not opening the PDA.

3.2.18 Census of wild animals

3.2.18.1 Non maintenance of records

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the State Government is to identify the threatened

species of flora and fauna analyse the key threats to their survival and develop an

action plan to deal with the problems.

It was noticed that the CWLW did not maintain any record showing the threatened

species of flora and fauna in the State. Consequently, no action plan was developed

to deal with the problems.

In reply, the Government stated in May 2006 that the information would be

collected from field formations and records would be maintained.

3.2.18.2 Non completion of census report

As per guidelines of the MOEF, census of wild animals is to be carried out annually.

It was observed that census of wild animals was carried out biennially instead of

annually in four out of six PAs27

test checked. In the remaining two PAs28

census was

not carried out. The PA Managers submitted census report to the CWLW with

copies to the MOEF without indicating the reason for increase/decrease in number.

It was also noticed that census in NPT was conducted in 704 sq km. out of 1982.235

sq km. of the project area. No census was carried out in the remaining 1278.235 sq

km. due to density of forest, difficult hilly terrain and lack of logistics support.

Thus, on account of non-completion of census report the wildlife population in the

state could not be vouched for.

3.2.19 Protection measures and offence cases

3.2.19.1 Inadequate/ineffective protection measures

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the State Government should grant status at par with

the police to the wild life staff by 2003 for use of sophisticated weapons and they

should be equipped with adequate arms and ammunition to combat poaching and

illegal activities in PAs. The MOEF directed in September 2001 that the patrolling

strategy and antipoaching measures should be accorded topmost priority and ever

vigilant and motivated frontline staff should be deployed to maintain a reliable and

round the clock patrolling in PAs. As per the norms, patrolling area coverage by each

camp/chowki should ideally be 25-30 sq km. Further, the age of a Forest

Guard/Forester should range between 18 and 35 years as per the norms fixed by the

Wildlife Institute of India.

It was noticed that Managers of six PAs9

test checked, established 26 antipoaching

camps for patrolling in 3889.985 sq km of PAs with the help of 28 Foresters (one

lady) and 34 Forest Guards (six ladies). The average age of the Foresters/Forest

Guards on roll ranged between 33 and 46 years against the norms of 18 to 35 years.

Based on MOEF‟s norms of 25-30 sq km per camp/chowki, only 780 out of

3889.985 sq km was possible to be covered by the existing patrolling camps. The

State Government also did not grant status at par with the Police to the protection

staff nor were they equipped with adequate arms and ammunition. Further, the

balance 3109.985 sq km of PAs remained totally unguarded and exposed to random

poaching/hunting. This reflects the poor state of affairs of surveillance and

inequitable coverage of patrolling in the PAs.

In reply, the Government stated (August 2006) that the matter had been taken up

with the concerned authorities for filling up the vacant posts; further development is

awaited.

3.2.19.2 Pendency of offence cases

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the State Government is to provide training to the staff

of wildlife wing for effective and speedy disposal of wildlife related cases through

special courts and public prosecutors.

The CWLW and the PA Managers did not maintain the register of wildlife offence

cases. Records of six PAs30

test checked revealed that 37 cases were pending in the

Court of which 10 cases are more than five years old. The State Government did not

initiate any action to get the cases expeditiously disposed through Special Courts and

public prosecutors as required under the NWLAP 2002-16.

3.2.19.3 Absence of precautionary action

The MOEF directed the State Government in April 2004 to take special precaution

to avoid death of wild animals due to electrocution.

Namdapha PT – 1985.235 sq km 10 Camps, 8 Foresters –average age 33 years, 11 Forest

Guards (three ladies) – average age 40 years.

Pakke PT – 861.95 sq km 13 camps, 10 Foresters – average age 46 years , 10 Forest Guards

(one lady) average age – 35 years Eagle nest WLS – 217 sq km

Kameng ER – 348 sq km

Itanagar WLS – 140.8 sq km 3 Camps, 6 Foresters – average age 33 years, 9 Forest

Guards (one lady) average age 38 years

Tale WLS – 337 sq km Camp Nil, 4 Foresters (one lady) average age 33 years, 4

Forest Guards (one lady) average age 40 years.

It was noticed that the State Government did not initiate any action to prevent such

casualties. As a result, seven wild elephants died in forest areas due to electrocution

during March to October 2004.

3.2.20 Promotional activities and wildlife tourism

3.2.20.1 Non compliance with directives of the NWLAP

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the State Government was to complete the survey of

Tourist accommodation/facilities within and outside the PAs by 2004 and set up

Ecotourism Advisory Boards to regulate tourism activities. Further, orientation

programme for tour operators was to be conducted with effect from 2003.

It was observed that the State Government neither conducted any survey for tourist

accommodation/facilities in PAs nor was any ecotourism advisory board set up. The

orientation programme for tour operators was also not conducted till date.

3.2.20.2 Irregular exemption from permit/entry fee

Under the WLP Act 1972, no person shall enter a PA without a valid permit granted

by the CWLW on payment of the prescribed fee. If any person contravenes the

provisions of the Act/Rule or order, framed thereunder, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may

extend to Rs.25,000 or with both. Further, the rate of entry fee was Rs.10 and Rs.100

per adult Indian tourist and per motor vehicle respectively with effect from January

2000.

In NPT, it was noticed that 13670 local tourists with 2070 vehicles entered the

project area without any permit from the competent authority and also without

payment of entry fee as required under the Act during 2001-02 to 2005-06. This

resulted in loss of Rs.3.44 lakh of entry fees. Besides, maximum penalty of Rs.34.17

crore31

was also not levied.

The Government stated (August 2006) that people from the local villages in the

periphery of the PA used the road through check gates and not the tourists. The reply

is not tenable as the people who crossed the check gate were tourists and not villagers

as per the records of the check gate.

3.2.20.3 Research and Development initiative

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the PA Manager was to prepare and complete research

priorities for his PA which was to be consolidated in the State Wildlife Research

Plan within 2004 for efficient management of PA. In NPT, though a research wing

was functional, no research was conducted prioritising conservation activities for

better management of flora and fauna and wildlife of the PA. In five other PAs test

checked, it was noticed that neither any research activity was conducted nor was any

research wing set up till date. In the absence of any study/research, conservation

activities in the PAs were carried out only in an adhoc manner.

3.2.21 Human resource development

3.2.21.1 Inadequate and untrained staff

Under the NWLAP 2002-16, the State Government should have adequate wildlife

trained personnel to man all the positions right from PA Managers down to Forest

Guards at grassroots level. The Steering Committee in its meeting in January 2003

directed that all vacant posts should be filled up forthwith for effective management

of PAs.

The position of manpower deployment in the following six PAs test checked was as

under:

Table – 3.8

Sl. No. Name of PA 1.

Namdapha PT 2. Pakke

PT & Eagle nest WLS 3.

Kameng ER 4. Itanagar

WLS 5. Tale WLS

Sanctioned strength of

different categories of

posts 71 46 - Nil - - Nil -

Men on roll 47

44 20 7 Post

vacant

24 2 --

Sources: Information furnished by the Department

The State Government neither filled up the vacant posts in PAs at Sl. No. 1 and 2

nor were the posts of PAs at Sl. No. 4 and 5 sanctioned. The reason for not

according separate sanction for posts in PAs at Sl. No. 3 was not on record. The

existing staff deployed in the PAs were also not trained in wild life management.

3.2.22 Monitoring and evaluation

Management Information System (MIS) is a tool for the Secretary and PCCF and

other superior officers of the Department to exercise control over effective

administration and management of PAs. Such control is exercised at Apex level

through verification of periodical reports/returns pertaining to conservation

activities, offence/poaching cases etc. received from field formations. The prescribed

reports/returns are required to be governed by a manual or a set of guidelines from

the State Government.

It was noticed that the State Government prescribed 21 periodical reports/ returns to

be submitted by the PA Managers to the Government/Department without

prescribing any manual or guidelines under which the reporting is to be governed. In

most of the cases, reports/returns were submitted by the PA Managers on plain

paper instead of in the prescribed form. No mechanism existed at the apex level

particularly, at the level of Principal Secretary and PCCF either to verify the

reliability of reports/returns received or to call for the same which were not received

from the PAs. Thus, in the absence of any mechanism to verify the reports/returns,

the exiting MIS is ineffective and inadequate.

The Government stated (August 2006) that steps would be taken to introduce

modern MIS in the state.

3.2.23 Conclusion

The objective of preservation of wildlife in accordance with the WLP Act, 1972 and

NWLAP 2002-16 was not achieved by the Department in full due to the absence of

financial control, delay in approval/formation of MPs and State Government‟s

inability to tackle the encroachment problems causing biotic and human interference

in the PAs and non declaration of eco-fragile zone around PAs as well. Besides, lack

of planning and prioritisation of preservation/conservation measures through

research also contributed to non achievement of the objectives.


• Preparation of MPs of all the PAs should be expedited and got approved by MOEF for

timely preservation of prestine flora and fauna and wildlife in the State.

• The State Government should finalise the APO and get it approved by the GOI before

commencement of the financial year, to avoid delay in release of funds and ensure that

the seasonal work during the initial period of the financial year is not disturbed.

• The State Government should seriously view misuse of funds and strengthen internal

control measures through inspection of works executed in the PAs to avoid

reoccurrence.

• The land in all PAs should be legally encompassed under the WLP Act, 1972.

• Declaration of land falling within 10 Km of each PA as eco-fragile zone should be

expedited to avoid adverse impact on wildlife habitats.

• The State Government should expeditiously relocate people who have encroached the

core zone of NPT and preventive methods taken for future encroachments.

• Annual census of wildlife should be made mandatory and authenticity of report should

be ensured. A register of wildlife inventory should be maintained in the Chief Wildlife

Warden (CWLW)‟s office.

• Since the State is rich in forest and wildlife research activities in all the PAs should be

given priority. A State Wildlife Research Plan should also be prepared for efficient

management of PAs.

• The State Government should grant status at par with the Police to the frontline staff of

PAs for effective and efficient preservation of forest and wildlife in the State.

• State Government should display information of all their wildlife programmes/projects

as required under Right to Information Act.

Infructuous Expenditure, Karnataka

Improper planting operations and failure to protect the agave seedlings resulted in

the failure of the plantation raised at a cost of Rs.1.14 crore.

The Company raised (1995-96) agave plantations over 701 hectares. The expected life

of the plant was 10 years with an annual yield per plant of 12-13 leaves from fourth

year onwards.

Audit observed (October 2004) that the Company did not harvest the leaves as

envisaged in the project report. It was reported (June 2003) that the project was a total

failure due to (i) heavy wild boar attack on tender shoots soon after planting, (ii)

adverse climatic conditions and other biotic interferences; and (iii) the agave plant was

found only in helter skelter so that collection of leaves was not economical. It was also

stated that there was no demand for agave leaves in the area. The Company instituted

an inquiry on being pointed out by Audit.

The enquiry into the failure of the plantations by the Additional Principal Chief

Conservator of Forest revealed (April 2005) that;

• the Company was not well equipped to execute the plantation works during 1995-96;

• the plantation pattern was not in accordance with the site conditions;

• the reason attributed for failure that “casting of shadow by the eucalyptus growth on the

newly planted agave suckers” does not have logical support as the site was cleared of the

growth before plantation and pruning of coppice growth was permitted;

Thus improper planting operations and failure to protect the agave seedlings resulted in

infructuous expenditure of Rs.1.14 crore on the plantation.

Unauthorised extraction/removal of forest produces by Environment and Forest department, Arunachal Pradesh.

The Border Road Task Force unauthorisedly extracted and removed forest produces

without permission from the Forest Department and without payment of royalty of

Rs.74.62 lakh.

Under the Assam Forest (AF) Regulations, 1891 (as adopted by the Government of

Arunachal Pradesh) and the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Manual 1980, no forest

produce shall be extracted/removed from any forest area unless a written permission is

granted and royalty charges are realised in full by the Forest Department.

Test check of records of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Arunachal

Pradesh, Itanagar revealed in January–February 2004 that the Border Road Task Force

(BRTF) extracted and removed seven categories#

of forest produces during 2000-01

from forest areas under the Lohit Forest Division, Tezu during construction of roads

without obtaining written permission of Forest Department. The Forest Department

did not initiate any action to prevent such un-authorised extraction nor did they realise

the royalty. This resulted in unauthorised extraction and removal of forest produce

without payment of royalty of Rs.74.62 lakh. The matter was reported to the

Department/Government in April 2005; their reply had not been received (October

2005).

5.10 Failure to detect illicit removal of timber

Failure to detect illicit removal of 218.121 cum of timber led to loss of revenue of

Rs.21.50 lakh.

Test check of records of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Namsai revealed in

February 2004 that a licensee of Veneer Mill was permitted to convert 187.612 cum of

green veneer into dry veneer between April and June 2003. The Licensee, however,

converted and despatched 405.733 cum of dry veneer outside the State against receipt

of 187.612 cum of green veneer during the period between April and September 2003.

The differential quantity between actual receipt of green veneer and despatch of dry

veneer by the licensee escaped the notice of the Department. Thus failure of the

Department to detect illicit dispatch of at least 218.121 cum dry veneer led to loss of

revenue of Rs.21.50 lakh by way of royalty.

After this was pointed out in audit in June 2004 the DFO while admitting the facts

stated in August 2005 that the license of the mill had been cancelled and penalty of

Rs.47.25 lakh was imposed. The report on recovery has not been received (October

2005). The matter was reported to the Government in June 2004 and July 2005; reply

had not been received (October 2005).

Unfruitful expenditure due to non-clearance of forest land

Irrigation department, Maharashtra.

Violation of Forests Conservation Act, 1980 by officials resulted in lingering of the

project for over 13 years and rendering the expenditure of Rs 1.88 crore unfruitful.

Under the Forests Conservation Act, 1980 (FCA) prior approval of Government of

India (GOI) for use of forest land for non-forest purpose is necessary. Rule 4.4 of FCA

provides that if the proposed work involves forest as well as non-forest land, work

should not be started on non-forest land till the approval of GOI is received for release

of forest land.

Construction of Minor Irrigation Project at Nandkhed in Washim district to irrigate

236 hectares of land through 5 kms long Right Bank Canal (RBC) was taken up for

execution in February 1986 by the Executive Engineer (EE), Minor Irrigation

Division-II, Akola (now Washim). The work of the dam was completed in June 1990

at a total cost of Rs 99 lakh. At the time of gorge filling, the Forest Department (FD)

objected the construction work as the initial reach of 1 km of RBC was on forest land

(2.12 hectares). As clearance for forest land was not obtained by the Department, the

work was stopped in June 1990. The division submitted the proposal to forest

authorities (July 1990) for use of forest land for non-forest purpose, which was awaited

(April 2004).

Audit scrutiny of the records of the division (January 1998) and further information

collected (January 2004), revealed that though Department was aware of the

involvement of forest land and non-permission from GOI to use forest land for non-

forest purpose the work of construction of canal from 2 km to 5 km was taken up

during 1995 to 1998 and completed at a cost of Rs 74 lakh. Similarly, despite knowing

that water could not be released through this canal for irrigation, works of land

development costing Rs 15 lakh were also carried out by the division during 1996 to

1998. Due to non-execution of work in the initial reach which involved forest land, the

constructed canal could not be put to use for irrigation purpose for over six years and

no irrigation potential was created from the project even after spending Rs 1.88 crore.

On this being pointed out in Audit, the EE stated in January 1998 that for utilisation of

the budgeted provision, the work of canal was executed. The EE further stated in

January 2004 that the water is being utilised directly from the reservoir as well as from

main nalla and nine to 169 hectares of land was irrigated during 1992 to 2003. The EE

also stated that disciplinary action was initiated against the erring officials.

The reply was not acceptable as the provisions of FCA were known to the Department

and the action was initiated only in April 2000 when the Chief Conservator of Forest,

Bhopal cancelled (October 1999) the forest clearance proposal. Action initiated was

pending (December 2004). Thus, delay in initiating action against the erring officials

had lingered the project for over 14 years and resultant unfruitful expenditure of Rs

1.88 crore on the project.

The matter was referred to the Secretary to the Government in May 2004. Reply has

not been received (December 2004).

Performance audit of Functioning of the Forest Department Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department (Forest Wing), Andhra Pradesh.

Highlights

Forest Department is primarily responsible for the conservation of existing forests and

regeneration of degraded forests. The Department has been implementing various

development schemes. A review on the functioning of the Department revealed that financial

management was deficient. Manpower available was not commensurate with the increase in

activities. The initial records in the divisions were not properly maintained. Procedures for

measurement of work were neglected. The Department also failed to arrest encroachments.

3.4.1 Introduction

Forests extended over 63,814 sq km and occupy 23 per cent of the State‟s geographical

area. Protection and conservation of the existing forests by arresting smuggling of

forest produce and preventing encroachments in forest areas, encouraging regeneration

of degraded forests by afforestation measures, encouraging social forestry and

development of wildlife are the principal activities of the Department. Government

adopted, during 1992, Joint Forest Management (JFM) as a strategy for protection,

improvement and development of forests with the involvement of local communities

by forming Vana Samrakshana Samithies (VSS). From February 2002, Government

adopted Community Forest Management (CFM), an advancement over JFM, with

devolution of more powers to the VSS in management of their activities. The VSS are

funded under such schemes as World Bank aided APCFM Project, NABARD assisted

RIDF-V, VI, VIII and Forest Development Agency Programme formulated by

Government of India (GOI).

3.4.2 Objectives of the Department

The objectives of the Department include

• conserving and improving existing forests

• conserving bio-diversity and genetic resources

• encouraging social forestry

• encouraging people‟s participation in forest management and generation of

employment to rural poor

• Compensatory Afforestation


Principal Secretary to Government in the Secretariat is responsible for the

administration of the Forest Department. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

(PCCF) is the Head of the Department and is responsible for the administration and

co-ordination of the work of four Additional PCCFs and 20 Chief Conservators of

Forest (CCFs). There are 30 Conservators of Forest (CFs) and 105 Divisional Forest

Officers (DFOs)/Assistant Conservators of Forest (ACFs), who are in-charge of

territorial, wildlife, social forestry and flying squad divisions. In addition, there are

two training institutions.


Audit review was intended to study

• Financial management

• Programme management

• the quality of the department‟s work/expenditure

• manpower management

• internal audit

3.4.5 Audit coverage

The functioning of the Department during the

period 2001-2004 was reviewed in audit (April-

June 2004) through a test check of records at

Secretariat and in the offices of the PCCF, 6

Circles43

and 34 Divisions44

as also in Forest

Academy at Dulapally in Hyderabad. The

findings are presented in the following. The

views of the Government have been considered

and included at appropriate places in the review.

Financial Management and Control

3.4.6 The Department implements State Plan schemes, Central Schemes, Centrally

Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and Externally Aided Projects (EAP). Funds received from

GOI are credited to government account and all expenditure is incurred using the

budget allotment made by the legislature. The important schemes undertaken during

2001-04 with assistance from external agencies/ GOI are given below: The large

savings under Plan were attributed by the Department to non-release of funds provided

in budget, by the Government. During 2001-04 supplementary grants (Rs 69.21 crore)

under Plan proved unnecessary as the original grants (Rs 540.65 crore) were not spent

fully. This indicated that supplementary grants were not assessed realistically.

3.4.7 Failure to surrender savings

According to the Andhra Pradesh Budget Manual, all savings should be surrendered

before 25 February each year. During the years 2001-04, the PCCF surrendered the

savings of Rs 191 crore under Plan in the last week of March leaving no time to the

Finance Department for alternative use of the funds. Government attributed (October

2004) the delay to the non-release of funds for the fourth quarter. However, the fact

remained that surrender of funds was not made by the due date.

Programme Management

The Department has taken up various programmes to develop forest growth,

sanctuaries, employment for the rural poor and forest dependent communities. A

review of the programme management revealed encroachment of forest areas, doubtful

utility of seedlings and loss of employment, as brought out in the succeeding

paragraphs.

Conserving and improving the existing forests

3.4.8 Encroachment of forest areas

According to the PCCF the area under encroachments in forest as on 1 April 1997 was

3,27,750 ha. While the encroachments were appreciably reduced to 2,76,852 ha, as at

the end of 31 March 2004, further concerted efforts are necessary to solve the problem

of encroachments.

3.4.9 Improper maintenance of Plantation Journals

Each Range Officer has to maintain records of each plantation raised by him in a

journal which contains columns for recording planting and pre-planting operations,

growth of plantations with survival percentage, observations of the range officers and

the inspecting officers. In the territorial divisions at Khammam and Bhadrachalam

(South), Audit observed that maintenance of the journals was improper and

incomplete. This indicated that the plantations were never inspected. Reply of the

DFOs that the Forest Range Officers could not post the columns in the journals owing

to heavy workload cannot be accepted as Plantation Journal is the only proof of the

condition

of the

plantations raised.

Government replied (October 2004) that the omissions in the journals pertaining to the

divisions pointed out were since supplied. However, it needs to be ensured that all the

Forest range officers maintain the journals correctly and inspections are conducted to

record the condition of the plantations.

Conserving bio-diversity and genetic resources

3.4.10 Non-eviction of encroachments in wildlife sanctuary

With a view to conserving the Eco and Bio systems of Kolleru lake, Government by a

notification declared (October 1999) an area of 77,138 acres of the lake in Krishna and

West Godavari Districts as a wildlife sanctuary. There were large-scale encroachments

in the area. The Notification provided for eviction of all illegal occupants and

acquisition of all private lands inside the sanctuary and denial of permission for

formation of new tanks for pisciculture. It was seen that the encroachment in

government land had gone up from 27,910 acres to 35,721 acres as of April 2004. The

area under fish tanks had gone up from 22,549 acres to 37,351 acres as of April 2004.

The quality of water in the lake deteriorated resulting in decline of fish and bird

population. Discharge of effluents into supply channels of Kolleru lake continued.

Government stated (October 2004) that eviction of encroachment would necessitate

payment of compensation and alternative land for the dispossessed persons.

Government also stated that encroachment in Government land had come down to

32,535 acres as of August 2004 and that an action plan for management of Kolleru was

under process.

Improvements to a sanctuary area was not taken up though required amount of Rs

4.61 crore was deposited by the beneficiary

3.4.11 Delay in taking up improvements to sanctuary

In September 1994, GOI approved diversion of 560 hectares of forest land to the

erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) for laying of 400 KVA

transmission lines from Srisailam to Hyderabad, Srisailam to Kurnool and Srisailam to

Vijayawada. The user agency was to deposit Rs five crore in 6 instalments for carrying

out improvements to sanctuary through which the transmission lines passed.

Accordingly the APSEB deposited Rs 4.61 crore by November 2003 with the

concerned four forest divisions45

between February 1998 and November 2003.

However no improvement to the above sanctuary was done as of October 2004 and the

amount remained unutilised. Government replied (October 2004) that the work could

not be commenced because the APSEB did not deposit the full amount. Reply is not

tenable inasmuch as the improvement could be done in phases using the available

funds.

Social Forestry

3.4.12 Doubtful survival of seedlings distributed

Social Forestry programmes have been launched with the objective of providing tree

consciousness among public by growing trees or wood lots on the village community

lands, tank foreshores, roadsides and railway lines. The programmes, inter alia,

contemplated distribution of seedlings to public, free of cost. These programmes were

implemented largely with the funds made available by the District Collectors.

During the period 2001-04, the DFOs of 1546

social forestry divisions spent Rs 31.39

crore on 18.39 crore seedlings. The DFOs distributed 11.33 crore seedlings (cost : Rs

19.34 crore) to Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads, schools, hospitals, social

organisations and private individuals. However, there was no mechanism in the Forest

Department till November 2003 to monitor the survival of the seedlings so distributed

or to assess the raising of plantations. As a result, proper utilisation of the seedlings

raised at a cost of Rs 19.34 crore and achievement of the intended objectives could not

be established.

3.4.13 Failure to generate employment

The RIDF VI - SMC was taken up during the period 2000-02 with financial assistance

from NABARD. The project envisaged digging of continuous contour trenches,

staggered contour trenches, check dams, percolation tanks as also vegetation measures

following the concept of watershed management. The project aimed at generating

employment to the rural poor by engaging labour for excavation of earthwork. The

labour component was 80 per cent of the project cost, according to the Project

Appraisal Report.

Scrutiny revealed that during the period 2000-02 five47

divisions executed trench works

of the value of Rs 4.23 crore by machines. As a result employment equivalent to 6.76

lakh mandays was denied. Reply of the Government (October 2004) that the work was

executed by machinery for quick achievement of targets was not tenable, as the

objective to generate employment was defeated.

Compensatory Afforestation

According to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the user agency to whom forest land

is transferred for non-forest purposes should, in addition to making available

equivalent non-forest land to the forest department, deposit with the latter, the

estimated cost of raising compensatory afforestation (CA) in the said non-forest land.

3.4.14 Non-receipt of deposit amount from user agencies

As against Rs 31.93 crore payable by nineteen user agencies towards CA in lieu of

forest land of 11,027.31 ha alienated between 1982 to 2002, Rs 2.39 crore were yet to

be received from them.

3.4.15 Non release of funds for CA schemes

In order to avoid abnormal delays in implementation of the CA schemes, GOI issued

instructions (July 1986) to all States for creation of a Special Fund to which the user

agency should deposit the amount for CA. The department concerned should fully

utilise the amount and keep a separate account thereof.

Accordingly, State Government issued orders in August 1993 for crediting the deposits

received from user agencies to the Government account and to include an equivalent

amount in the budget proposals of the next year, which would be utilised for CA

schemes by keeping it in a non-lapsable fund.

An amount of Rs 64.65 crore was realised from user agencies between September 1981

to March 2003 for taking up CA schemes in 21,568.38 ha of non-forest land; but it was

observed that afforestation was done only in 17,644.75 ha at a cost of Rs 50.43 crore.

PCCF stated that afforestation was not taken up in the remaining 3923.63 ha since

funds were not released by Government. Non-implementation of CA would defeat the

objective of minimising the adverse impact caused by release of forest lands for non-

forest purpose.

Quality of department’s work/expenditure

3.4.16 Payment for works without check-measurement

For execution of works, advances are drawn by the Forest Range Officers (FRO) by

submitting fund applications to the DFOs. The advances so drawn are in turn

disbursed by the FRO to his subordinates (Section Officers), who are to measure and

record the work executed in Measurement Book before making payment. According to

the AP Forest Department Code no bill shall ordinarily be passed for payment without

the entries in the Measurement Book having been check-measured by the FRO. The

underlying idea of check-measurement is to ensure that the work executed is in

accordance with the specifications and there are no defects or deficiencies in the work

executed.

Test-check in four Divisions revealed that payments aggregating to Rs 17.09 lakh were

made for 146 works by the Section Officers without check-measurement during 2001-

04. Proper controls did not exist at the level of FROs and the DFOs to ensure the

adherence to the codal provisions in this regard. Failure to check-measure the works

recorded in Measurement Book before making payment would give scope for

misappropriation.

Government replied (October 2004) that due to heavy work load the check-

measurements could not be done before making payment in those cases. Government

also stated that all these works had since been check-measured by the respective

officers and no irregularities were noticed in execution. The check-measurement

should have been done before making the payment to avoid any

misappropriations/excess payments. The heavy work load cannot also justify

dispensing with check-measurement.

3.4.17 Payments made for works not executed

DFOs should ensure that the vouchers received in adjustment of the advances paid to

Forest Range Officers are accompanied by full details such as reference to the

Measurement Book in which the work executed was recorded and date of check-

measurement, before the expenditure is incorporated in divisional accounts. The

SDFO, Giddalur, who conducted physical inspection of the works of Giddalur Forest

Division at the instance of Conservator of Forest, Guntur concluded (February 2003)

that the works on which an expenditure of Rs 23.22 lakh was booked by four officers

between May 2001 and September 2002 were not actually executed. He confirmed

that the vouchers submitted by them were bogus. The enquiry also revealed that the

works on which expenditure was charged were not even recorded in the Measurement

Book. Nevertheless the vouchers were admitted and advances adjusted by the DFO.

The failure of the DFO, Giddalur to carry out the necessary checks on the vouchers

before admitting them made the misappropriation possible.

On the instructions of Government (March 2003), the PCCF submitted proposals to

Government in January 2004 to refer the case to the Commissioner of Enquiries

(COE). The matter was not referred by the Government to COE as of October 2004.

3.4.18 Excess payment due to adoption of incorrect rate

PCCF instructed (May 2002) that for all SMC works and other civil works, the

Standard Schedule of Rates (SSR) of Irrigation/ Roads and Buildings Department

should be adopted. Notwithstanding these instructions, the Zonal Committee (chaired

by the CF, Visakhapatnam) responsible for the preparation of the Forest Schedule of

Rates (FSR) of the Visakhapatnam Zone, incorporated a specific rate of Rs 4.20 per

RMT (Rs 37.33 per cum) in the FSR for earthwork excavation in Hard Gravelly (HG)

soil. The rate for this item in the SSR of Irrigation Department of Visakhapatnam

circle was Rs 29 per cum. In the estimates for 130 works sanctioned by the DFO,

Visakhapatnam the higher rate of Rs 37.33 per cum contained in the FSR was adopted

for excavation in HG soils.

Adoption of higher rate in the execution of 1.46 lakh cum of earthwork in HG soils

resulted in excess payment of Rs 14.14 lakh. The DFO and the CF, Visakhapatnam

replied that the works were carried out in hard disintegrated rock (HDR) and not in

HG soils. Government stated (October 2004) that the matter was under investigation.

The reply of DFO was untenable, because the estimates clearly stated that the works

were to be executed in HG soil. Further, it was seen from the Measurement Books and

the divisional works register that the nature of soil where the actual works were

executed was HG soil. There was no record to show that the works were executed in

HDR as contended.

Manpower Management

It was noticed that the sanctioned strength of staff including Forest Range Officers,

Forest Section Officers in respect of four test-checked circles as per the records of the

PCCF was at variance

with the data collected by Audit from those circles. Further,

there were no precise norms to determine the staff required based on the level of

activity in the Divisions. The PCCF stated that the staff strength was based on

experience and various factors affecting the protection and regeneration of forests.

For proper and timely implementation of various schemes/ programmes, the staff

position at various levels is to be monitored by the Head of Department (HOD) and

updated from time to time. This enables the HOD to ensure that the men in position

do not exceed the sanctioned strength and also to deploy the staff to Divisions as

needed. Training programmes are also to be arranged by the HOD to improve the

working skills of the staff.

3.4.19 Inadequate Manpower

AP Community Forest Management Project (2002-07) with loan assistance of Rs

653.97 crore from the World Bank is a major project being implemented by the

Department. Other important schemes in the recent years included NABARD assisted

RIDF-V, VI and VIII. While the implementation of these projects necessitated

additional staff, Government ordered in August 2002 abolition of 748 existing posts

(Permanent : 694, Temporary : 54) of Forest Section Officers, Forest Beat Officers and

Junior Assistants. Execution of major projects without adequate manpower could lead

to dilution in controls to ensure adherence to the specifications and guidelines.

Accumulation of arrears in internal audit, increase in encroachments in the wildlife

sanctuary at Kolleru lake and other forest areas as well as poor maintenance of

important initial records, as commented elsewhere in this review were attributed by the

Departmental Officers to heavy workload. In reply Government stated (October 2004)

that they had accorded permission in October 2003 to fill up the 1510 vacant posts of

Forest Range Officers, Forest Section Officers, Forest Beat Officers, Assistant Beat

Officers and other ministerial staff in a phased manner and that action was being taken

to fill up the vacancies.

Forest receipts

3.4.20 Receipts of the Department include the amounts realised by way of

compounding fees collected from the forest offenders, sale proceeds of illicitly

felled/confiscated forest produce, sale proceeds of beedi leaf, red sanders, bamboo and

other minor forest produce, sale of tickets for entry into zoological parks, licence fee

from saw mill owners. The estimated receipts vis-à-vis the actual receipts of the

Department during the period 2001-04 were as under.

(Rupees in crore)

Year Budget

estimates

Actual

2001-02 99.75 46.20

2002-03 117.23 71.10

2003-04 85.94 92.95

Observations of Audit on the performance of the Department in relation to receipts

from forest offenders and sale of forest material are contained in the Report of the

Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31 March 2004 (Revenue

Receipts).

The audit comments in that Report include the following:

• Failure of the Department to prevent illicit felling of forest produce valued Rs 21.72

crore.

• Loss of revenue of Rs 1.07 crore due to irregular compounding of forest offences.

• Non-transportation of confiscated material valued Rs 2.06 crore to Government

Timber Depots that led to their decay.

The irregularities noticed during a test check of other receipts are discussed below.

3.4.21 Use of receipts for maintenance of Zoos

All receipts of Government are to be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Nevertheless, Audit noticed that receipts aggregating to Rs 4.19 crore during the years

2002-04 from sale of tickets for entry into three Zoological parks50

were credited by the

respective Curators to the account head „Deposits‟, wherefrom they incurred an

expenditure of Rs 2.05 crore on maintenance and development of the zoos.

Government in the Finance Department issued instructions (May 2002) directing all

the departments to credit the user charges to the Consolidated Fund against the

relevant receipt head.

Government in EFS&T Department stated (October 2004) that use of departmental

receipts for maintenance of zoos was permitted by the Administrative department in

December 2000. The contention is not tenable because Finance Department orders of

May 2002 dispensed with the system of crediting user charges to Deposit account.

Arrears in Internal Audit

3.4.22 Internal Audit aims at safeguarding against errors/recurrence of irregularities in

operational and financial matters, besides ensuring sound accounting and financial

reporting.

It was noticed that internal audit was not conducted regularly in the Department.

While 146 units were to be audited during the year 2003-04, internal audit was

completed in respect of 24 units only. The position of arrears in internal audit in

respect of three test-checked circles51

during the last three years was as under:

It was observed that only procedural irregularities were included in the Internal Audit

Reports. In particular, the failure to conduct check-measurement of works (para 3.4.16

refers) was not brought out in Internal Audit.

Government replied (October 2004) that the arrears in internal audit would be cleared

by March 2005.

3.4.23 Conclusions

Budgetary and expenditure control in the Department was deficient. There were

abnormal delays in the implementation of Compensatory Afforestation schemes.

There was gross neglect of procedures in relation to recording of works in the

Measurement Book and check-measurement of works. Primary audit checks were not

exercised by DFO on the vouchers received from the Range Officers. There was no

increase in staff commensurate with the increased activities. Department failed to

arrest encroachments in the wildlife sanctuary at Kolleru Lake.


• Check-measurements must be conducted before payment in all cases, and quality of

work must be ensured.

• Government should speed up the action plan for management of Kolleru to minimise

the adverse impact of pisciculture on the bio-diversity.

• Internal audit wing needs to be strengthened for regular conduct of internal audit and

to avoid financial irregularities.

Performance audit of afforestation of vacant land in rural areas in Delhi

Introduction

Delhi is spread over an area of 1,483 sq. kms of which approximately 1,339 sq. kms

falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Out of this

area under the MCD, 1,158 sq. kms is the rural belt while the remaining 241 sq. kms

constitute the urban area. According to the 2001 Census, out of a total population of

137.83 lakh in Delhi, 128.20 lakh i.e.

93.01 percentis urban and 9.63 lakh i.e. 6.98 percent is rural. There are 135 urban and 191

rural villages under the MCD which is entrusted with undertaking of development

works for provision of civic facilities and infrastructure like metalling/cement

concrete/brick flooring of pathways, construction of drains, street lighting, outfall

drains, parks, community latrines, etc. in these villages.

The Government of NCT of Delhi has entrusted the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

with the implementation of the plan schemes of “Development of Rural and Urban

villages” in the NCT of Delhi. The Development Department and the Department of

Urban Development of the Government of Delhi are the nodal controlling departments

for the programme in rural and urban villages respectively. The funds for these

schemes are released to MCD by the nodal departments under the two plan schemes of

development of urban villages and development of rural villages respectively. The

execution of development works in the urban and rural villages is carried out by the

Engineering Department of MCD headed by the Engineer-in-Chief, assisted by Chief

Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers.

Scope of audit

Performance audit of the implementation of the scheme during 1998-2004 was carried

out through test check of the records of the MCD and the related documents in the

Development Department and the Department of Urban Development.

Management of works

4.9.1 Construction of outfall drains in rural villages

Prior to 1988, rural drainage work done by MCD was restricted to draining the sewage

water to the village pond from where its outfall was the responsibility of the Irrigation

& Flood Control Department of the Government of Delhi. In the absence of outfall

drains, the sewage water stagnated in the village ponds and posed serious health

hazards to the local inhabitants. Government of Delhi decided in November 1988 that

all rural drainage schemes should include connecting the drainage system to the outfall

drain by MCD.

Out of 191 rural villages, outfall drains were available in only 94 villages as of March

2004. Against the target of construction of 197 kms of outfall drains in rural areas at an

estimated expenditure of Rs.39.40 crore∗, MCD constructed only 77.84 kms of outfall

drain at an estimated expenditure of Rs.15.57 crore during 1998-2004; i.e. a shortfall in

achievement of 60 percent of the target.

Test check of the Narela zone disclosed that 23 outfall drains constructed during 1988-

2003 in 22 villages by MCD were not connected with the Flood Control Department‟s

main drains and sewage water from these villages was stagnating in open land/ponds

exposing the residents to the possibility of diseases like malaria, typhoid, etc. The

entire expenditure on construction of these 23 outfall drains was thus rendered

unfruitful. Out of the 23 drains, MCD made available expenditure of Rs.1.68 crore on

the construction of only 11 outfall drains.

The Corporation stated in September 2004 that the targeted length of outfall drains

could not be constructed due to different sections required as per site conditions. The

Corporation added that out of the 23 outfall drains, nine had since been connected

with the Flood Control Department‟s drains while the work could not be started in two

cases due to delay in demarcation of land. It added that immediate action in respect of

the remaining 12 cases was being taken.

4.9.3 Afforestation of vacant land in rural areas

Government of Delhi decided in April 1991 that afforestation of vacant land in rural

areas earmarked for community facilities, such as schools, community halls, barat

ghars, parks, health centers, etc. should be taken up. Plans for this purpose were to be

prepared by MCD after a survey. Though the MCD initiated a proposal for conducting

the survey of rural/urban villages through private agencies in 1995, no survey was

actually completed as of March 2004. MCD spent Rs.11.02 lakh on survey during

1994-95 to 1998-99 against the allotted fund of Rs.1.30 crore for the period during

1992-93 to 1999-2000.

The Chief Town Planner stated in May 2004 that though five private agencies were

awarded the work in 1997, only three actually started the work. Immediately on

starting the work, they submitted bills for part payment as per their terms and

conditions. Due to delay on the part of the Finance Department of MCD in making

the payment, the private agencies refused to do further work and asked for

enhancement of their rates. Subsequently, the survey was discontinued.

Thus, failure of the MCD to plan and organize the survey stalled any progress in

afforestation and rendered the expenditure of Rs.11.02 lakh on survey unfruitful.

The Corporation stated in September 2004 that action was being taken for conducting

the survey for afforestation of vacant land in rural areas.

Recommendation

Government of Delhi should institute systems to monitor execution of planned works and to

ensure the intended impact. An exercise may be undertaken to assess the actual need for lavatory

blocks and for convincing the local population as to the health and environmental benefits of good

hygiene.

Performance audit of Zoological Survey of India

Zoological Survey of India, ZSI failed to fulfill its primary objectives in the areas of

exploration and survey of „ faunal‟ resources, taxonomic studies, status survey of

endangered species. ZSI also failed in publishing results of survey and studies leading

to non-dissemination of information. An aquarium planned for operation by 1990 for

educational and recreational purposes was yet to be established even after a lapse

more than 10 years. There were instances of costly equipment either lying idle or

being under utilized.

Highlights:

Survey and exploration work of „faunal‟ resources in the selected areas was

behind schedule for periods ranging from five to 13 years.

Equipment costing Rs 22.68 lakh procured for taxonomic studies was lying

unutilized since April 1996 for want of trained manpower.

Slow progress in conducting status survey of endangered species.

Research results were not published expeditiously resulting in their non-

dissemination

Non-commissioning of Marine Aquarium Research Centre at Digha for about a

decade adversely affected marine research and resulted in idling of equipment worth

Rs 49.25 lakh

Ineffective monitoring and evaluation resulted in delay in achievement of targets

fixed by MoEF in 1987.

Introduction

:

Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) was established in 1916 to promote survey,

exploration and research leading to advancement in knowledge of various aspects

of the animal life of India. Ministry of Environment and Forests(MoEF), the

administrative Ministry of ZSI redefined the objectives of ZSI in December 1987.

The primary objectives of ZSI are:

(i) Exploration and survey of “faunal” esources.

(ii) Taxonomic studies

(iii) Status survey of endangered species

(iv) Publication of results through departmental journals, publication of

fauna of India.

The secondary objectives of ZSI included maintenance and development of national

zoological collection and central referral, information, advisory and library services,

maintenance of museums at headquarters and regional stations and environmental

impact studies wherever specially asked for by the MoEF.

Organizational setup:

ZSI is headed by a Director. Besides its headquarters in Kolkata with 18 divisions,

there are 16 regional field stations. Monitoring of day-to-day activities of ZSI is

conducted through two internal committees viz., half yearly Monitoring Committee

and Screening Committee. In addition MoEF, in January 1997 constituted

Program Advisory Committee (PAC) for proper and comprehensive study of

various aspects of ZSI.an organizational chart is at Annex-I.

Scope of audit

The present audit review seeks to examine the performance of ZSI in relation to

exploration and survey of “faunal” resources, taxonomic studies, status survey of

endangered species, publication and some other activities of ZSI from 1994-95 to

2000-01

Financial outlays

Against the total provision of 17.73 crore and Rs. 43.48 crore under Plan and Non-

plan during 1994-2000,ZSI spent Rs. 17.82 crore and Rs. 44.10 crore respectively.

MoEF allocated Rs. 5.78 crore and Rs 10.15 crore for the year 2000-2001 under

Plan and Non- Plan heads as detailed below:

Year Plan Non-plan

Provision Expenditure Provision Expenditure

1994-95 268 275 560 550

1995-96 268 256 589 583

1996-97 273 262 597 635

1997-98 295 356 815 800

1998-99 340 299 866 908

1999-2000 329 334 921 934

2000-2001 578 NA 1015 NA

Exploration and survey of “faunal” resources

Of 12 first priority areas to be surveyed by 1993,9 were incomplete as of April 2001.Similarly,of 17 second priority areas to be surveyed by 1996,12

remained to be completed.

Survey of “faunal” resources of an area involves inventorisation of specimens

of that area. The mode of survey is by conducting tours to the selected area,

collection of specimens and recording and inventorisation of the specimens

collected. ZSI had already surveyed nearly one-third of the country by December

1987.MoEF had directed ZSI to complete faunistic survey of the remaining two-

third geographical area by 2000. The areas to be surveyed were categorized under

first and second priority. Under the first priority, 12 areas were to be surveyed by

1993,while under the second priority 17 areas were to be surveyed by 1996.

The status of survey as of June 2001 under first priority areas was as

follows:

Sl.No. State Area Target Year Status (As of

June 2001)

Time Overrun

(Years)

HIMALAYAN ECOSYSTEMS

1 Himachal

Pradesh

1991 Not completed 10

2 Uttar Pradesh

(Himalayan

Portion)


3 Jammu&

Kashmir

(Himalaya

n Portion)


4 Sikkim 1990 Completed ---

5 Arunachal

Pradesh


DESERT ECOSYSTEMS

6 Rajasthan Completed

before 1987

--

7 Gujarat 1990 Not Completed 11

8 Ladakh 1993 Not Completed 8

MARINE ISLANDS ECOSYSTEMS

9 Lakshadweep 1987 Completed --

10 Andaman &

Nicobar Islands

1993 Not Completed 8

TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS

11 Western Ghats 1992 Not Completed 9

12 North-Eastern

States


Surveys of nine first priority areas were not completed till date. MoEF had

directed ZSI in 1987 to conduct the surveys of 11 priority areas though 10 task

forces drawn from the regional field stations and headquarters. These task forces

were to be strengthened through re-deployment and recruitment. Surveys

conducted during 1994-2001 by the task forces were checked in audit. Earlier

records of tours/surveys undertaken were not available at ZSI. The annual action

plan of ZSI shows that ZSI had planned to undertake

120 tours covering six areas over the period 1994-2001,112 of which were finally

undertaken. Number of tours planned during a year declined from 37 planned in

1994-95 to only 7 in 2000-01, though the men-in-position had remained almost the

same. No tour was planned or undertaken for survey of three areas, himachal

pradesh, uttar pradesh and Gujarat. MoEF in reply (December 2000) stated that

the survey of these three regions was an on-going project. The reply of the

ministry is not tenable in view of the fact that no tour was planned or undertaken

which was essential for completion of survey.

Of the nine areas where survey remained to be completed as on June 2001,

functioning of task force in four areas, Uttar Pradesh, Andaman &Nicobar Islands,

Ladakh and Jammu &Kashmir were test checked in audit for the period 1994-

2001.22 tours were planned in these areas as per annual action plan of which 19

were undertaken.

Test audit revealed that despite directives of the Ministry, sufficient efforts for

redeployment and recruitment of staff were not made. MoEF in 1987 had directed

ZSI to revise the strength of existing task force in Uttar Pradesh from nine to 13.The

additional manpower was to be arranged through recruitment and redeployment ZSI

did not redeploys the staff after 1987.Only one non-technical staff member was

recruited. The “faunal” resources of Jammu & Kashmir was to be surveyed by

1993 by strengthening the task force of High Altitude Zoology Field Station

(HAZFS),Solan .MoEF directed ZSI to revise the strength of the task force

from five to nine years by recruitment. Though four posts were created only two

were filled.

To assess the efficacy of the tours undertaken for the surveys, tour reports, half-

yearly evaluation report of ZSI and minutes of PAC meetings were studied .it was

seen that efficacy of the tours for survey has not been commented on at any stage.

the progress of the “faunal” survey of an area had also not been evaluated at any

stage, which is indicative of lack of effective monitoring on part of ZSI as well as the

ministry.

MoEF had also identified 17 areas for survey under second priority and had desired

completion of the work between 1998 and 1996. The status of survey as of June 2001

under second priority areas was as follows:

Sl no Area and state Target

Year

Status (As of

June 2001)

Time overrun

(years)

ESTUARINE AND BRACKISHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

1 Chilka lake,

Orissa


2 Sunderbans,

West Bengal

1988 --Do-- 13

3 Rushikuliya

Estuary, Orissa

1988 --Do-- 13

4 Hooghly-Matla,

West Bengal

1988 Completed --

5 Mahanadi Delta,

Orissa

1993 Completed --

6 Krishna-

Godavari Delta,

Andhra Pradesh


FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

7 Osman sagar,

Andhra Pradesh

1993 Completed --

8 Kabar, Bihar 1992 Not Completed 9

9 Dal and Wular,

Jammu

1994 Not yet

initiated

7

10 Gobind Sagar,

Punjab

1995 Not yet

initiated

6

11 Loktak, Manipur 1996 Not completed 5

BIOSPHERE RESERVES

12 Nilgiri(Tamil

Nadu, Karnataka

and Kerala)


13 Nanda Devi

(Uttar Pradesh)

1990 --Do-- 11

WETLANDS

14 Ashtamudi

(Kerala)

1991 Completed --

15 Ujni

(Maharashtra)

1991 Completed --

MANGROVES

16 Sunderbans

(West Bengal)


17 Andamans

(Andaman &

Nicobar)

1989 --Do-- 12

ZSI did not complete survey of 12 out of 17 areas till June 2001, despite time overrun

ranging from five to 13 years. ZSI did not maintain any records showing surveys

undertaken over the period 1987-1993.Over the period 1994-2001,ZSI planned 36

tours and undertook 26 tours for survey of second priority areas. Number of tours

planned during a year declined from eight tours planned in 1994-95 to only one

tour in 2000-01, though there was no decline in manpower. ZSI did not

undertake any tour during 1994-2000 in respect of nine areas out of 12.

Test check of three areas namely, Dal and Wular (Jammu and Kashmir), Govind

Sagar (Punjab) and Loktak (Manipur) was taken up in audit.

Survey of Loktak, Manipur was to be completed by 1996. Scrutiny revealed that

ZSI undertook only one survey in 1996-97 out of five surveys, which were planned

during 1994-2001. MoEF stated in December 2000 that the survey and

inventorisation was artially completed by the Scientist who was later posted to

Hyderabad.However, the work remained incomplete as of June 2001.

MoEF directed ZSI in 1987 to complete survey of Dal and Wular (Jammu and

Kashmir) by 1994 by strengthening the joint task force from Freshwater Biological

Station (FBS), Hyderabad and High Altitude Zoology Field Station, Solan.But the

survey of the area was not initiated due to lack of scientific manpower in FBS,

Hyderabad.Thus, due to failure to associate scientific staff, the surveys of Dal and

Wular (Jammu and Kashmir) remained incomplete as of June 2001.

Survey in respect of Govind Sagar (Punjab) was to be completed by 1995 by

strengthening the joint task force from FBS, Hyderabad and Northern Regional

Station, Dehradun as per directives of MoEF of 1987. But the survey work was not

initiated as yet. MoEF stated in December 2000 that the survey was not initiated due

to lack of manpower at FBS, Hyderabad.Thus, Survey of Govind Sagar (Punjab)

remained incomplete as of June 2001.

In view of non-completion of “faunal” survey, taxonomic studies of specimens could not

be completed.

Taxonomic studies are intended to identify and classify organisms and place them in

appropriate taxons.

Taxonomic studies are conducted following collections of specimens during survey.

MoEF had directed in 1987 that the taxonomic study of the specimens collected

were to be completed within an year‟s time following the collection. Thus

completion of taxonomic studies of first priority areas was scheduled to be completed

by 1994 and that of second priority areas was by 1997. Since the surveys of nine

first priority areas and 12 second priority areas were not completed as of June

2001,taxonomic studies too were not complete. Audit found that ZSI did not

maintain any records showing year-wise number of specimens collected and

taxonomically identified. Thus taxonomic studies could not be completed by ZSI.

Equipment meant for taxonomic studies remained underutilized

ZSI procured one Scanning Electron Microscope at a cost of Rs 22.68 lakh in

August 1989 for enhancing its functional capabilities in ascertaining the taxonomic

identity of animal species. The equipment was installed in August 1990 and was

being used up to March 1996. However it remained unutilized since April 1996 for

want of trained manpower. MoEF stated in December 2000 that efforts were

being made to train scientists of ZSI in different institutions to use the microscope.

Thus failure of ZSI to provide trained manpower resulted in under utilization of

the equipment costing Rs 22.68 lakh.

Status survey of endangered species

Status survey of 66 species of mammals,46 of birds, three of amphibians and large number

of invertebrates remained to be completed as of June 2001.Only survey of 11 mammals

could be done

The objective of status survey of endangered species is to determine the range of

distribution, range of movement, population status, habitat and ecological

requirement along with threat factors etc. of endangered species. MoEF in 1987 had

directed ZSI to conduct status survey of 77 species of mammals, 46 species of birds,

15 species of reptiles, 3 species of amphibians and large number of invertebrates by

1995. ZSI did not prepare any plan to achieve the target. The status survey was to be

completed on priority basis by deploying scientists from Regional Stations and the

Headquarters. However, ZSI undertook status survey of only 11 species (mammals).

Non-completion of status surveys of remaining species within the target date was

attributed to the retirement of several scientists/specialists. The reply has to be

viewed in the light of the fact that no proper action was taken by ZSI to fill the posts

arising due to retirement.

Through MoEF stated in December 2000 that ZSI had undertaken status survey of

11 species, it was seen from the records of ZSI that it had completed status survey of

only eight endangered species. Of eight completed surveys, ZSI published status

report of only three endangered species as of April 2001

Publications

ZSI publishes Fauna of India and fauna of States which provides the identification

keys and distributional ranges of the species and genera belonging to a particular

group as well as of species of economic importance. Publication of other priced

journals interlia provides guidelines for the management of species as well as

conservation areas. This literature also serves as the foundation of different

Environmental Impact Assessment studies and generates base line data for applied

research particularly in the field of wildlife management, medicine, pest

management and fisheries.

MoEF in December 1987 had targeted publication of at least 50 volumes of Fauna of

India during 1991-2000. It was, however, observed that only nine volumes on Fauna

of India were published by ZSI during 1991-2001, Poor progress was due to delay in

submission of volumes of Fauna of India by the respective groups of experts. Thus

41 volumes of Fauna of India were yet to be published even after expiry of one

year after the target date of 2000.

Publication of Fauna of States provides complete information on the “faunal” wealth

of the country. MoEF in December 1987 had set a target for compilation of data and

publishing the fauna of all the 20 States by 2000. However, ZSI had published only

six state Fauna series, namely Orissa, Lakshadweep, West Bengal, Meghalaya,

Andhra Pradesh and Delhi. Test check of state fauna projects revealed that they

were behind schedule for periods ranging between two and six years.

ZSI publishes the results of survey and studies in its priced journals. The journals are

(i) Records of ZSI (Quarterly),(ii)Memoirs of ZSI (Occasional),(iii) Bibliography of

Indian Zoology(annual) and (iv)Annual Reports of the ZSI. It was observed that

during 1994-95 to 2000-01, ZSI published 4800 copies of Records of ZSI worth Rs

14.95 lakh of these 2265copies worth Rs. 6.11 lakh were lying unsold as of April

2001. Similarly, out of 1400 copies on Memoirs of ZSI worth Rs. 2.96 lakh which

were published during 1994- 2001, 421 copies worth Rs. 0.89 lakh were lying

unsold as of April 2001. The Bibliography of Indian Zoology for the years 1991,

1992 and 1993 was belatedly published in April 1999.The Annual Report for the

year 1992-93 was published in May 1995.Besides, the bibliography of Indian

Zoology was not published after April 1999 and the Annual report was not

published after 1995.

Non-commissioning of Marine Aquarium and Research Centre, Digha

The setting up of Marine Aquarium and Research Centre (MARC), Digha was

approved by the Planning Commission during the Sixth Five Year Plan period

with the objective of exhibiting live marine fauna in an aquarium for education and

recreational purposes as well as to conduct research on selected marine forms

in captivity. The center was planned to be operational by 1990.

Mention was made in report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India

(Scientific departments) for the year ended March 1991 regarding delay in

commissioning of MARC at Digha despite incurring an expenditure of Rs 233.08

lakh up to June 1990. MoEF had stated in its action Taken Notes in March1993 that

the aquarium would be commissioned in the latter half of 1993.However, the center

could not be commissioned as of June 2001.Civil Construction in regards to the

aquarium was completed by Central Public Works Division(CPWD)in 1990-

91.during trial run in November 1991,CPWD found that the pumps meant for

water circulation system were defective and intimated ZSI in April 1992.Despite

being aware of the defects in pumps of the intake well and also in pumps installed

in the aquarium,ZSI awarded a work order to a private firm inAugust 1992 at a

cost of Rs. 48.95 lakh for the supply of live animals and for furnishing the aquarium.

In November 1992,the firm requested ZSI to rectify the defects in the system. ZSI,

instead of taking up the matter with CPWD for rectifying the defects asked the firm

in March 1994 to rectify the defects in the system as an additional work outside

scope of contract. The cost of additional work was to be assessed by CPWD. The

firm fitted the pumps but did not connect them for water circulation. The firm

requested ZSI in July 1995 that the pre assessment of works already done by the

firm, along with the work of connection to be done should be worked out by ZSI

through CPWD within August 1995.ZSI, without conducting any pre-assessment

cancelled the contract in December 1995 without assigning any reasons. ZSI had

paid an amount of Rs 34.37 lakh to the firm towards part payment for the work

ZSI did not pursue the matter with CPWD for about four years and approached

them only in November 1999 to rectify the defects of the water circulation system

and furnish the aquarium thus the project visualized in the Sixth Five Year Plan

(1980-85) and scheduled for commissioning in 1990 had not been commissioned as

yet.

MoEF stated in December 2000 that ZSI could not commission the Center, as the

entire matter was subjudice throughout the period from 1995 till date. The reply of

MoEF was not tenable since the balance works could have been done by inviting

fresh tender as suggested by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs after

cancellation of the contract. The reply of the MoEF has also to be viewed in the light

of its own observation made in March 2000 that ZSI had not properly pursued the

case.

As a result of non-commissioning of MARC, Digha, research studies on

commercially threatened species like Seahorse, Seacucumbers, Sacred Chank,

Horsehoe Crab, Ornamental Coral Reef, associated species like Turbo Trochus,

Fishes etc.which could be reared in the laboratory and raunched into the wild to

safeguard and ensure future breeding of the species in the wild, could not be

undertaken. Research in captivity could not be undertaken to prevent possible

extinction of commercially threatened species like Sea Horse. As regards research

studies on commercially threatened species, MoEF stated in December 2000 that the

species which were pointed out by audit were not normally found in the digha coast.

The contention of MoEF was to be viewed in light of its comment that the said

species were only to be reared in the MARC, Digha. ZSI did not offer any

comments on this issue As regards research in captivity, MoEF accepted the facts

and stated in December 2000 that it would be taken up as soon as the water

circulation system was made functional by CPWD.

Costly equipment remained idle for a long time

Two costly equipment worth Rs 49.25 lakh procured at the MARC, Digha remained

idle for long periods as detailed below:

One Amino Acid Analyzer procured by ZSI in 1992 at a total cost of Rs 36.25 lakh

for ascertaining the amino acid structure, its pattern and chemical configuration in

the biological tissue comprising of protein/peptides for marine species had not been

commissioned till December 2000.MoEF stated in December 2000 that due to

closure of the foreign firm immediately after its import the instrument could not be

commissioned. MoEF also stated that the equipment would be made operational by

locating a local suitable company. ZSI stated in April 2001 that many local

companies had been approached for repair and maintenance of the machine. The

report of ZSI disclosed the fact that the instrument had not been commissioned

(April 2001)

One High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) system procured by ZSI in

February 1994 at a cost of Rs 12.96 lakh for monitoring of marine pollution and

biological contents study, was not utilized due to lack of expertise. MoEF stated in

December 2000 that HPLC was being used at MARC, Digha. However, ZSI itself

had stated in May 2000 that the equipment was not being utilized.

Monitoring:

ZSI has three committees to monitor and evaluate its research activities, While

Screening Committee (SC) and Half Yearly Monitoring Committee (HYMC)

consists of members from ZSI, Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of

the members from MoEF, ZSI and experts from other organizations. Though SC

met annually and HYMC met twice a year as per prescribed frequency during

1994-2000, PAC met only on three occasions No meeting was conducted up to July

2000 as against two meetings in a year as prescribed by MoEF in January 1997.

Though the discussion of PAC was minuted, the discussion of SC and HYMC were

not minuted during 1994-2001. In the absence of recorded minutes of these two

committees, follow up action on important suggestions/recommendations of the

members could not be verified. Though PAC was constituted by MoEF to conduct

comprehensive study of various aspects of ZSI, its minutes did not establish that

various aspects of ZSI had in fact been comprehensively studied by the said

committee. Scrutiny of the minutes of PAC revealed that the projects were not

evaluated with reference to target and shortfalls. The reason for delay in

completion of the project and remedial measures proposed thereon were also not

recorded. In the absence of such recorded details, Audit could not evaluate the

effectiveness of monitoring mechanism in ZSI.

Conclusion

ZSI failed to fulfill its primary objectives of exploration and survey of

“faunal”resources, taxonomic studies, status survey of endangered species,

publication of results, adversely affecting data required for eco-conservation and

biodiversity programmes of the government.

Forest Development through World Bank aided Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project

3.1.1 Highlights

The Madhya Pradesh Forestry (Project) was started in September 1995 with World Bank

assistance, for protecting and improving the forests through Joint Forest

Management (JFM) by the Forest Department and local population. Significant progress

towards JFM could not be achieved, as local people were not effectively involved, due to

non-execution of memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Forest Protection

Committees (FPCs) and Village Forest Committees (VFCs), non-involvement of Non

Government Organisations (NGOs), less payment of protection money to FPCs and VFCs

and under utilisation of committee funds in Income Generating Activities (IGA). Further,

no plans were prepared for carrying out the residuary work after completion of Phase I and

non-approval of Phase II by the World Bank, was endangering the existing forest

development works. The Forest Survey of India (FSI) reported (1995, 1997 and 1999) a

significant reduction of 13534 sq. km in dense forest cover in Madhya Pradesh between

1995-99. Thus, loss of forest cover coupled with the natural increase in the population

would adversely affect environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance.

Rs.20.75 crore were paid in advance to Forest Protection/Village Forest Committees

(FPCs/VFCs) in contravention of World Bank directions.(Paragraph 3.1.4 [iii][a])

Rs.59.83 lakh was lying unutilized in Personal Deposit (PD) Account. (Paragraph

3.1.4[iii][b])

Protection money of Rs.5.49 crore (50.2 percent) was not paid to FPCs/VFCs. (Paragraph

3.1.4[iv][a])

Delay in submission of claims to World Bank cast an extra burden of Rs.4.62 crore, on the

State. (Paragraph 3.1.4[v])

Injudicious expenditure of Rs.4.89 crore was incurred on sites unsuitable for Assisted

Natural Regeneration and Village Resources Development. (Paragraphs 3.1.5.1[I], 3.1.5.2

[I])

Expenditure of Rs.87.26 lakh was incurred on prohibited/avoidable items of work.

(Paragraph 3.1.5.1[ii])

Delay in fixation of norms for forestry work under Assisted Natural Regeneration resulted

in avoidable extra expenditure of Rs. 13.68 crore. (Paragraph 3.1.5.1 [iv])

Rs 1.76 crore was spent on forestry works in excess of norms. (Paragraph 3.1.5.1 [v], 3.1.5.2 [ii])

Expenditure of Rs 2.62 crore on sites which were graded below average proved

wasteful. (Paragraphs 3.1.5.1[vi], [vii])

3.1.2. Introduction

Madhya Pradesh (MP), had an area 4.43 lakh sq. km, of which 1.54 lakh sq. km (35 per cent)

was designated as forest area with 1.35 lakh sq. km (30.5 per cent) being actually under forest

cover (1995) (Dense 95153 and open 40011 sq. km).

In order to meet the immense and increasing biotic pressure from the local communities,

while conserving the forest resources and the environment their active participation was vital.

To meet this felt need, GOMP launched a Madhya Pradesh Forestry Project (Project)

with financial assistance from the World Bank. The project, which was to start in January

1995, actually started in September 1995. It had four components (i) Forest Development, (ii)

Bio- Diversity Conservation, (iii) Research and Extension and (iv) Management

Development. The project laid the highest emphasis on joint forest management (JFM) by the

Department and local communities.

3.1.3 Organisational set up and scope of audit

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) had overall charge of the Department.

Under him, a Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) was the Project Director (PD), responsible

for co-ordination of all project activities at the headquarters. In the field the Project was

implemented by 21 Conservators of Forests (CFs) and 79 Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs)

in charge of Circles/Divisions respectively.

The accounts and records for the period 1995-2000 of 22 out of 79 divisions (in which the

Forest Development component was executed) and the PD‟s office were test checked during

the period between December 2000 and April 2001. Audit observations are included in the

succeeding paragraphs.

3.1.4 Financial Management

The Project with a total outlay of US$ 217 million equivalent to Rs.795 crore, was envisaged

to be implemented in two phases of four and five year‟s duration respectively. The total

estimated cost of the first phase was US$ 67.3 million, equivalent to Rs.245.79 crore.

World Bank assistance of US$ 58.0 million (equivalent Rs.212 crore) was to cover 86 per

cent of the first phase project cost (Rs. 245.79 crore) with the remaining 14 per cent being

borne by GOMP.

The cost of each of the four components of the project and actual expenditure thereon is

summarized below.

(i) Component wise outlays and expenditure

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

FD BD R&E MD

Outlay

Actual Ex

FD-Forest Development, BD-Bio-diversity Conservation, R&E-

Research & Extension,

MD-Management Development.

(ii) Year wise details of project outlay and actual expenditure

(Rs. in crore)

Year Forest

evelopme

nt

Bio Diversity

Conservatio

n

Research

and

Extension

Management

Developmen

t

Total

OL AE OL AE OL AE OL AE OL AE (Share of)

Stat

e

Go

vt.

Worl

d

Ban

k

Total

1995-96 10.54 8.28 6.10 2.78 6.41 1.14 6.78 1.32 29.83 3.65 9.87 13.52

1996-97 26.36 22.34 12.1

2

7..32 8.65 3.61 4.88 2.14 52.01 16.63 18.78 35.41

1997-98 44.68 30.39 12.0

5

8.23 10.34 5..96 5. 21 3.14 72.28 11.95 35.77 47.72

1998-99 67.16 53.28 8.40 7.03 12.65 11.38 3.46 4.81 91.67 11.24 65.26 76.50

1999-00 -- 59.23 -- 5.62 -- 11.95 -- 5.46 -- 9.14 91.40 82.26

Total 148.7

4

173.52 38.6

7

30.98 38.05 34.04 20.3

3

16.87 245.7

9

34.33 221.08 255.41

Percentage of

AE

to OL

117 80 90 83 104

Due to delayed start (September1995 in place of January 1995) of the Project annual

expenditure lagged behind outlays for successive years. The Department did not,

however, revise the annual outlays. As a result, during 1995-96 to 1998-99 annual

expenditure ranged between 45 and 83 per cent of outlays. There was saving of Rs 7.69

crore in BD, Rs 4.01 crore R&E and Rs. 3.46 crore MD components, which was utilized

to finance the excess expenditure of Rs. 24.78 crore in FD component.

(iii) Unauthorized/irregular payments

In October 1996 GOMP directed that protection money be paid to the FPCs and VFCs

every six month for ensuring the protection of the forests from illicit felling, grazing, fire

and encroachment. World Bank had indicated (December 1999) that all expenditure in

respect of works executed, service rendered and goods delivered by 31 December 1999

will be eligible.for reimbursement. Rs. 20.75 crore paid without ensuring protection and

in contravention of directions of Government/World Bank.

a) Contrary to the above directions of the GOMP/World Bank, the Department paid

(November and December 1999) Rs.20.75 crore (Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR):

Rs.11.50 crore and Village Resources Development Programme (VRDP): Rs 9.25 crore) in

advance as protection money for the period from January 2000 to March 2001 i.e. beyond

the date of completion of the project Rs 59.83 lakh was lying unutilized in PD Account since

December 1999.

(b) In Bhopal division Rs 59.83 lakh allocated for technical assistance during 1999-2000 was

deposited (March 2000) in PD account by the direction DFO as per of the Project Director.

The amount was lying unspent (March 2001) in PD Account, much after the closure of the

project in December 1999. Protection money of Rs 5.49 crore was not paid (50.2 per cent) to

Committees.

(iv) Test-check of records revealed that Rs. 5.46 crore (49.8 per cent) only, was

paid to FPCs/VFCs out of a entitlement of protection money of Rs. 10.95 crore

during 1995-98. This was against the concept of JFM and had an adverse effect on

people‟s participation. Delay in submission of claims to World Bank cast an extra

burden of Rs.4.62 crore on the State.

(v) Less payment of protection money and impact thereof

(vi) (vi) Non- reimbursement due to delay in submission of claim

Scrutiny revealed that against Rs. 221.08 crore reimbursable by the World Bank, the

Department preferred claims of Rs. 249.71 crore for the period 1995-2000, of which the

World Bank reimbursed Rs. 216.46 crore only. Claims of Rs 4.62 core were not accepted

due to late submission of claims after due date of 30 April 2000 thus casting an additional

burden on GOMP.

3.1.5 Implementation

The main component of Forest Development comprised of two sub-components (i)

Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) for closed forest (more than 40 per cent canopy

density) and (ii) Village Resources Development Programme (VRDP) for open forests

(less than 40 per cent canopy density). It emphasized:

(a) the promotion of natural forest regeneration, supported by enrichment

planting, improved silvicultural practices, and forest floor management and;

(b) a Village Resources Development Programme (VRDP) based on participatory

planning, management and protection of forest resources, integrated with activities

to generate alternative incomes or resources, to reduce the pressure on the forests.

This Joint Forest Management (JFM) of State forests for effective protection and

sustainable development was to yield higher productivity in perpetuity.

3.1.5.1 Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) Under Closed Forest

Natural regeneration occurs in existing forest from sprouts (coppices) arising from stumps

of felled trees and natural seeding. Natural regeneration can be assisted by cut back

operation (CBO), limited soil and moisture work and protection of forest form illicit

felling, grazing and fire through forest protection committees (FPCs). To increase the

production of forest produce ANR activities should be carried out in recently exploited

forest with canopy density of more than 0.4 with sufficient coppices being available for

increasing productivity. Although the sanctioned phase-I of the project was to cover a

period of 4 years, (September 1995 to December 1999) the project report for ANR

programme was prepared for 7 years keeping in mind the continuity of phase-II. An area of

216723 ha was covered during 1995-99 with an expenditure of Rs.67.77 crore during 1995-

2000. Scrutiny revealed that:

Injudicious expenditure of Rs.3.13 crore was incurred on unsuitable sites.

(i) Wasteful expenditure on unsuitable sites

The Project Director instructed (December 1996) that sites for ANR be selected in closed

forests having canopy density between 0.4 and 0.7. The Project Director issued revised

instructions (April 1997) that sites (coupe worked during the last 5 years and having

canopy density between 0.4 and 0.7 be selected. In June 1998 the PCCF further clarified

that sites should selected from coupes exploited in the previous year, If such sites, were

available, coupes worked earlier were to be selected but no having conog density of more

than 0.5.

Test-check of the records of 14 divisions revealed the following.

Contrary to the above instructions an expenditure of Rs. 2.07 crore was incurred on sites

which should not have been selected at all i.e. (i) 12(1776.3 ha) having canopy density of

less than 0.4 during 1995-98 (Rs.. 53.lakh) and (ii) 41 unexploited sites having an area of

7087 ha during 1995-99 (Rs.1.53 crore) and

Rs 1.06 crore incurred on unsuitable sites selected to lack of clear cut guidelines on

selection of sites i.e. (i) 19 sites (3657 which had been exploited 6 to 17 years back,

during 1995-99 (Rs 58.08 lakh) and (ii) 10 coupes (1556 ha) having canopy density as

high as 0.5 to 0.9 exploitation during 1996-99 (Rs 47.73 lakh).

Expenditure of Rs 3.13 crore on ANR work on unsuitable sites was wasted as: (i) sites

with canopy density less than 0.4 cannot be raised as dense for without gap planting, (ii)

sites with unexploited coupes had no live stumnz available for regeneration, (iii) in sites

exploited more than 5 years earlier coppices would be too mature for assistance and (iv)

sites with canopy density of more than 0.5 after exploitation did not require

further enrichment through ANR.

Expenditure of Rs 45.38 lakh was incurred on prohibited works.

(ii) Expenditure on prohibited items of works

(a) Expenditure on plantation and adoption of plants, collection of sea eradication of

lantana and chhindgrass (during first two years), construction cattle proof trench (CPT)

and fire protection works were prohibited as there were not required.

Test-check of the records of 11 divisions for the period 1995-2000, revealed that an

expenditure of Rs 39.89 lakh was incurred on (i) collection of seed departmental

nurseries (Rs 3.61 lakh) and (ii) plantation activities not forming part of the scheme. An

expenditure of Rs 5.49 lakh also incurred on prohibited activities viz. fire protection and

digging of which was not to be done departmentally but by the FPCs, protection be their

responsibility. The DFOs stated that in initial years expenditure on items was incurred

due to non-receipt of specific directions from higher authorities in this regard.

Extra expenditure of Rs 41.88 lakh was incurred on soil and moisture conservation

works.

(b) Extra expenditure on soil and moisture conservation works

The Project Director had instructed (April 1997) that there should be minimum stress on

soil and moisture conservation measures which should be taken up only in specific sites

during the 1st year at a cost of around 20-25 per cent of the project cost of that year,

because main work under ANR was cut back operations and protection of forest from

illicit felling and grazing.

Scrutiny of the records of 5 divisions revealed that an expenditure of Rs. 79.93 lakh was

incurred during 1995-96 and 1996-97 on soil and moisture works against maximum

admissible amount of Rs. 38.05 lakh (25 per cent of Rs 152.19 lakh, the expenditure

incurred in first year). The excess expenditure incurred on soil and moisture work was

viewed with concern by the World Bank in a mid term review of the project. Had the

norms been prescribed at the beginning of the project the extra expenditure of Rs 41.88

lakh could have been avoided and the amount utilized to cover more are under the

scheme.

Wasteful expenditure of Rs 85.22 lakh on untimely execution of forestry works.

(iii) Wasteful expenditure due to untimely execution of works

(a) The PCCF directed (June 1998) that eradication of Lantana/Chhindgrass be

carried out in the months of August/September, in rainy season, to ensure its

uprooting before fruiting. Test-check of records for the period 1995-2000 of 12 divisions

shoed that Rs 69.96 lakh was spent on removal of Lantana/Chhindgrass between

October and March i.e. after the prescribed period of August/September, which was

wasteful.

(b)To ensure proper growth of bamboo, the PCCF directed (June 1998) that cleaning of

bamboo clumps be carried out during November and December, as there is a decrease in

moisture and increase in temperature thereafter, adversely affecting growth. Test-check of

the records of Harda, Katni and Khandwa divisions for the period 1996-99 revealed that

Rs15.26 lakh was spent on cleaning of bamboo clumps between January and March

which was against the directions of the PCCF.

Avoidable extra expenditure of Rs 13.68 crore resulted due to delay in fixation of

norms.

(iv) Avoidable expenditure due to delay in fixation of

norms

The PCCF decided the following norms for ANR works as late as in June

1998.

Rate in Mandays per ha per year Particular of work I year work II year

work

III year

work

IV to VII

year

wo

rk

1

.

Forestry works and

other misc.

expenditure

1

1

4 2 2

2

.

Protection money 1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0 Total 2

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

Test-check of the records of 21 divisions revealed that Rs 9.14 crore was spent on forestry

works executed in 86799.676 ha during the period 1995-98 (50361.353 ha 1st year,

28676.463 ha 2nd year and 7761.86 ha and 3rd year works) while only Rs 3.50 crore was

admissible as per norms fixed by PCCF in June 1998. The total expenditure of Rs 24.44

crore spent on forestry works executed in 259800.19 ha (153024.45 1st year, 82600 ha

2nd year and 241275.74 ha 3rd year works) during 1995-98 in MP, exceeded the

admissible expenditure of Rs. 10.76 crore by Rs 13.68 crore. Timely fixation of norms

could have resulted in a saving of Rs 13.68 crore and its utilization on ANR in another

43682 ha.

Rs 69.86 lakh incurred in excess of the norms

(v) Excess expenditure over the norms

Test-check of the records of 8 divisions revealed that, after fixation of norms by PCCF, in

June 1998, Rs 2.41 crore were spent on forestry works executed on 22337.20 ha (1st year

9950.40 ha, 2nd year 8131 ha, 3rd year 4255.80 ha) during 1998-99 and 1999-2000. This

exceeded the limit of Rs 1.71 crore as per norms (of forestry works including other

miscellaneous expenditure) by Rs 69.86 lakh.

Expenditure of Rs 1.10 crore incurred on incorrect sites/treatment proved wasteful.

(vi) Wasteful expenditure on incorrect sites/treatment.

In 6 divisions an expenditure of Rs. 1.10 crore was incurred on 23 ANR sites (3108 ha )

which were graded (1998) as below average due to incorrect site/treatment etc. Although

the Principal Secretary, Forest Department expressed his displeasure (August 1998), no

action was taken against the defaulting officials.

Negative growth in 29 ANR sites indicated that expenditure of Rs 1.52 crore, was

unfruitful.

(vii) Decrease in existing regeneration status

A survey of 395 ANR sites (out of 1105) conducted during 1997-98 revealed a negative

growth in 69 sites in 22 divisions. The Department attributed (in the project completion

report) this to either regeneration in these areas not being as expected or the level of

protection being poor. The Department did not survey regeneration in the remaining 710

sites.

Further, test-check of the records of 9 divisions revealed (between December 2000 and

April 2001) that in 29 ANR sites, 1496 established plants per ha on an average at the start

of the work had decreased to 912 at the time of regeneration survey. The negative growth

may either be due to failure of initial regeneration or poor protection. Thus expenditure

of Rs. 1.52 core incurred during 1995-2000 on ANR proved unfruitful, as it was unable to

increase, or maintain the existing regeneration. Action to investigate the matter and to fix

responsibility was not initiated by the Department.

3.1.5.2 Village Resources Development Programme (VRDP) open forests

VRDP envisaged rehabilitation of degraded forests (RDF) of 300 ha by each village forest

committee (VFC) within 10 years. The process required for each VFC to carryout

the following(a) selection of site of 300 ha, (b) cut back operation, dressing of

stumps, eradication of lantana, soil and moisture work and gap planting in 30 ha each

year and (c) protection of forest (300 ha). VRDP was taken up in 418899 ha by 1164

VFCs during 1995-2000 with a total expenditure of Rs. 73.15 crore, of which Rs. 42.81

crore was on forestry works and Rs 30.34 crore on protection. The following observations

are made.

Rs. 1.76 crore was spent on 41 sites with high canopy densities where RDF work was not

required.

(i) Injudicious expenditure on unsuitable sites

The PD instructed (January 1996) that VRDP sites for RDF work be selected form forests

with canopy density less than 0.4

In 8 divisions, Rs 1.76 crore was spent on RDF work in 41 sites (12692 ha) during 1995-

99 where the existing canopy density ranged between 0.4 to 0.8 and RDF work was not

required to be carried out at all Rs 1.76 crore could instead have been utilized on sites

with canopy density below 0.4 where RDF work was really required.

Expenditure exceeded the norms by Rs 1.06 crore.

(ii) Excess expenditure over norms

PD fixed (April 1997) norms for expenditure on forestry works i.e. advances soil

preparation, plantation, maintenance, and preparation of microplan Rs 90,000, Rs

45,000, Rs 9000 and Rs 5000 per VFC, per year respectively.

In 8 divisions expenditure of Rs 4.71 crore was incurred on forestry works during the

years 1997-2000 on an area of 15030 ha (preparation 8550 ha plantation 6480 ha). This

exceeded the admissible expenditure of Rs 3.65 crore (as norms) by Rs 1.06 crore.

Lack of accountability regarding execution of forestry works of Rs 72.09 lakh.

(iii) Lack of accountability regarding forestry work through VFCs

The Forestry works are required to be carried out by the staff of the forest department

However, test-check of the records of Bhopal and North Rajpur division, revealed (March

and April 2001) that Rs 72.09 lakh ( in addition the protection money) was paid to VFCs

in advance for carrying out forestry works during 1996-2000 but were shown in the

concerned head of account as expenditure. As and when expenditure on forestry works is

incurred by the VFCs it would escape scrutiny by the Forest Department/Audit due to

absence of details of such expenditure. As on January 2001, no expenditure had been

incurred.

3.1.6 Lack of funds for residuary works endangered existing forestry works

The agreement between the Government of India (GOI) and the World Bank was for

phase-I of the project with a duration of four years. The Department however, designed

the key components of phase-I viz. ANR and VRDP for seven years and ten years

respectively assuming that phase-II would

immediately follow phase-I. No contingency plan, in case of non-approval of phase-II,

was made for residuary forestry works although the Department was aware that unless

these works were completed, phase-I investments would become infructuous.

Lack of funds for residuary works endangered existing forestry works of Rs. 78.20 crore.

(a) On closure of the first phase in December 1999, Department provided funds of Rs

1.28 crore (42 per cent) and Rs 4.13 crore (25 per cent) for upkeep of ANR and VRDP

works during 2000-01, against the required amounts Rs. 3.04 crore and Rs 16.76 crore

respectively. Thus, due to insufficient budget provisions the expenditure on incomplete

forestry works of Rs 78.20 crore (ANR Rs 35.39 crore, VRDP Rs 42.81 crore) was in

danger of becoming infructuous.

(b) In 13 divisions Rs 1.44 crore was required for planning in 9600 ha area of 320

VFCs where advance soil preparatory work was already done at a cost of Rs 2.81 crore

during 1999-2000. The Department however, provided Rs 84.22 lakh only to 9 divisions

and no funds at all to the remaining 4 divisions during 2000-2001. Plantation work

would not be possible without adequate funds rendering Rs 1.17 crore out of the total

expenditure of Rs 2.81 crore incurred on advance soil work in 1999-2000 infructuous.

3.1.7 Joint Forest Management (JFM)

The project envisaged JFM through participation of local people in FPCs under closed

forests and VFCs in open forests. JFM involves a contract specifying the distribution of

authority, responsibility and benefits between Department and people. For

providing protection, an amount of Rs 300 per ha per year was payable to concerned

FPCs/VFCs through their bank accounts. 2/3rd of this amount was to be utilized on

income generating activities (IGA), such as agro forestry, drinking water facilities,

promoting use of non-conventional energy, improved cattle breeding techniques, honey

collection etc., and 1/3rd for protection activities. The following points were noticed

in the implementation of JFM.

(i) Non-execution of

agreements

The Project envisaged formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between

FPCs/VFCs and the Forest Department, to define the VRDP and ensure the legality of

JFM arrangements linking defined areas of forest with defined communities and

specify management and protection measures and responsibilities, product sharing

arrangements, sanctions and conflict resolution procedures (both within and between

VFCs). MOUs were thus essential to JFM. The Department, however, failed to execute

any MOU, citing delay in issue of a revised Governments resolution as the main reason

for this. As a result, the legality of most of the JFM arrangements remained uncertain,

undermining the status of JFM activities.

(ii) Non-involvement of non-governmental organization

(NGO)

The Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) of the World Bank of 28 February 1995 mentioned

that many NGOs had experience of participatory processes and could make a major

contribution to VRDP by: (i) assisting in VRDP workshops; (ii) providing women staff

to work in VRDP Preliminary Teams and (iii) to provide training in participatory rural

appraisals.

The Project envisaged extensive involvement of NGOs in project implementation and the

Project Director had instructed (June 1997) that active involvement of NGOs

should be ensured as a bridge between people and Department.

Despite these specific recommendation/direction no funds were earmarked for

involvement of NGOs. Scrutiny of records in 9 divisions revealed that NGOs were not

involved in the implementation of the project.

(iii) Non-functioning of spearheads

teams

Spearhead teams were formed under instruction (May 1997) of the PD to provide

training and technical know-how to the field staff as well as societies etc. but these

remained ineffective due to frequent transfers of the members and heavy work load of

their normal duties as reported by the PD in the project completion report.

Rs. 7.29 crore (87.7 per cent) out of Rs 8.31 crore for income generating activities

remained unspent.

(iv) Non-use of fund for income generating activities

Income generating activities (IGA) were to be used to create support among the local

people for JFM. Out of Rs 62.72 crore paid during 1995-2000 to 1105 FPC and 1164

VFCs, Rs 41.80 crore were to be utilized in creation of village assets and income

generating activities. The PD claimed utilization of 50 per cent of the funds disbursed but

no record in support thereof were produced to Audit.

Test check of records of 12 divisions revealed that Rs 8.31 crore our of Rs 12.46 crore,

paid during 1995-2000 to FPCs/VFCs were to be utilized in IGA, however, only three

divisions Korba, North Seoni and North Bilaspur utilized Rs 1.02 crore out of the

available fund of Rs 2.67 crore. DFO Khandwa stated that funds were used in agro

forestry work but did not furnish details of the amount utilized or the quantum of work.

The remaining eight divisions did not utilize the funds (Rs 7.29 crore).

(v) Control over Committee

Funds

In July 1998, the PD instructed that annual audit of FPCs/VFCs funds should be

conducted by the Sub Divisional Forest Officers. The PD claimed, 40 per cent audit of

the committees funds.

Test-check of the records of 21 divisions revealed (between May 2000 and April 2001)

that no audit checks had been carried out by the SDOs on Rs 18.47 crore disbursed to

FPCs/VFCs of 17 divisions. Inspections were stated to have been carried out in the

remaining 4 divisions but the inspection reports were not produced to Audit.

3.1.8 Project Evaluation

Non-involvement of women and weaker sections of society

A study (1999) by the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal to

document the processes adopted by the Department in implementation of JFM and

Eco Development revealed that there was limited participation of women in JFM and

women‟s involvement in decision making was negligible. Committee members had

limited knowledge about the operation and utilization of fund in bank accounts. The

Department to whom offences were reported by the VFCs/FPCs did not take action in

some cases, discouraging further reporting.

These findings corroborate a mid-term evaluation (1998) by the Society for Participatory

Research in Asia (PRIA), New Delhi which also found that: (i) watch and ward

payments

were not being made in most VFCs; (ii) payment of daily wages was irregular; (iii)

income generating activities and alternative energy resources were very low, (iv) few

assets had been created and the needs of the marginalized especially the landless,

ignored and (v)the importance of the linkage between the ecological and social aspects

had not percolated down to the field staff and therefore to the community. The Project

Completion Report prepared by the Department mentioned that VFCs/FPCs were

dominated by influential men of the village. Lack of participation by the mass of the

people, particularly women and members of Scheduled Tribes in JFM activities

significantly reduced its effectiveness.

3.1.9 Significant loss of dense forest cover

To conserve the existing forests is the main function of the Forest Department and to

increase substantially the forests and tree cover, with the involvement of people under

JFM and by changing the traditional system, of „fences and fines‟ approach to protect of

forest was the main objective of the National Forest Policy 1988 and Project. Joint Forest

Management was launched in Madhya Pradesh with effect from 1991.

However, Reports of the Forest Survey of India‟s (FSI) revealed that the dense cover of

the

State significantly decreased by 13534 sq. km during 1995-99 as compared to 1991-95

as detailed below:

Years of FSI

Report

Forest cover of M.P. State in sq. km Decrease (-) or increase (+) in

dense forest cover Dense Open Total In sq. km Percentage

1991 95,385 40,400 1,35,785 -

-

-

- 1993 95,537 39,859 1,35,396 (+) 152 (+) 0.16

1995 95,153 40,011 1,35,164 (-) 384 (-) 0.40

1997 82,745 48,450 1,31,195 (-) 12,408 (-) 13.00

1999 81,619 50,211 1,31,830 (-) 1,126 (-) 1.40

The reduction in dense forest of 13534 sq. km (95153-81619) during 1995-99 was much

higher than the loss of 232 sq. km (95385-95153) during 1991-95 and there was a

drastic reduction of 13 per cent during 1995-97. The Department neither ensured

protection of the existing dense forests nor investigated the reasons for reduction. The

approximate quantity of 13534 sq. km of forests (at average growing stock of 47 cu m

per ha of M.P.) worked out to 636 lakh cu m (valuating Rs 43019 crore).

Monitoring

With a view to monitor and evaluate the work done both qualitatively and

quantitatively and also to bring transparency in ANR and VRDP works, the

performance audit of all sites were required to be conducted. However evaluation of

only 770 sites out of 2269 have been conducted (1998) as summarized below.

Types of

Committe

e

Total

sites

durin

g

projec

t

No. of sites evaluated Outcome of evaluation

Exte

rnal

Intern

al

Total Out -

standi

ng

Very

good

Goo

d

Avera

ge

Below

Avera

ge 1. A.N.R 1105 232 178 410 118 181 55 26 30

2. V.R.D.P 1164 178 182 360 49 166 104 34 7

Total 2269 410 360 770 167 347 159 60 37

It was seen that external evaluators had graded 11 per cent sites as below average, while

internal evaluators graded only 2.3 per cent sites as below average. Further, evaluation of

ANR works of 410 sites was partly (50 per cent) conducted and balance 277 sites had not

been done. Similarly under VRDP evaluation of 360 sites was partly (55 percent)

conducted and balance 514 sites had not been conducted. Thus the Department failed to

evaluate expenditure of Rs 89.5 crore (63 per cent) on ANR and VRDP works. Although

the Department had committed (1998) itself, during the mid term review of theproject by

the World Bank, to find out the reasons for works being average and below average, no

action except the issue of letters to the DFOs concerned, had been taken (July 2001).

The matter was reported to Government (August 2001); reply was awaited (September

2001).

Performance audit of functionaing of zoos and wildlife sanctuaries

Rajasthan

4.3.1 Introduction

26681 sq. km protected area is under the control of Forest Department to protect and

conserve wildlife in the State. There are 25 sanctuaries including 2 National Parks

(9252.40 sq. km) and 5 Zoos in the State. A test-check of the records relating to the

period 1996-2001 of 5 Zoos, 2 National Parks and 3 Sanctuaries was conducted

from November 2000 to April 2001. Important findings noticed are discussed in

succeeding paragraphs :

4.3.2 Financial outlay and expenditure

During the period 1996-2001, an expenditure of Rs 66.91 crore was incurred against

the allotment of Rs 102.47 crore and savings of Rs 35.56 crore. Of this, Rs 32.57

crore pertains to Centrally sponsored scheme. Main reasons for savings was delayed

release of funds (Rs 5.60 crore) by the Government of India (GOI), delayed/non-

release of funds by the State Government, improper planning and non-utilisation of

funds by field units, etc. which shows lack of adequate monitoring. Test-check of

the records revealed as under:

(i) An India Eco-Development Project (IEDP) at Ranthambore Tiger Reserve

(RTR) was started in September 1996 to be completed by December 2001 with the

aim of reducing negative impact on the bio-diversity of protected area. The

Project was jointly financed by International Development Association, Global

Environment Facility and Government of India. After Mid Term Appraisal by the

World Bank, the Project cost was reduced (January 2001) from Rs 38.38 crore to Rs

22.85 crore due to non-finalisation of consultancy for micro-planning of village eco-

development, delayed release of funds by the State Government, inadequate field

staff, lack of training for eco- development activities, lack of periodical monitoring,

non-receipt of sanction for equipment, etc. Only Rs 9.93 crore (43.45 per cent) were

spent upto March 2001 for the Project.

(ii) Further in the Project, community participation through the Village Eco-

Development Committees (VEDCs) was the focal point. These

committees were required to implement the activities having direct or indirect

linkage with the bio-diversity viz.; Pasture development, Animal Husbandry, Bio-

gas, Agro-forestry, Soil conservation, etc. Proper emphasis was not given to village

eco-development (VED) programme resulting in shortfall in approval of micro plans

and expenditure as given below:

Against the targetted VEDCs (97; revised to 60), micro-plans of only 31 were

approved (March 2001).

Expenditure under VED programme was Rs 5.25 crore (35 per cent) against the

provision of Rs 14.90 crore.

S.No. Provisions/directions Audit observations (i) As per Section 6 of Act, Wild

Life Advisory Board was to meet twice in a year to review the status of wild life conservation.

The new Advisory Board constituted (September 1998) did not meet even once as of June 2001 and defeated the very purpose of its constitution.

(ii) As per Sections 19 to 25 of Act and direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court (August 1997), the State Government was required to complete the process of determination of rights, acquisition of land within one year for rehabilitation of villages from sanctuary.

Action for determination of rights and acquisition of land had not been finalised. Rehabilitation of 125 villages from Ranthambore (23), Sariska (29) and Desert National Park, Jaisalmer (73), could not be finalised (June 2001).

(iii) As per Section 29, no destruction, damages and exploitation in the sanctuary was allowed without approval of the Legislature and sanction of Ministry of Environment and Forests (Government of India).

The authorities of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana (IGNP) finalised (January 2001) construction proposals of Gadra Road branch canal by covering 600 sq. km area of Desert National Park, without obtaining the approval of the State Legislature and GOI. This led to unauthorised destruction of sanctuary.

(iv) Section 33 of Act authorise to manage, control and maintenance of Sanctuary area.

Out of 3162 sq. km area of Desert National Sanctuary, 116.66 sq. km only was covered under protection and conservation activity by fencing, providing water and maintenance of huts and these activities were not carried on in remaining 3045.34 sq. km.

(v) As per Section 38 H, no Zoo can be operated without recognition by Central Zoo Authority (CZA).

The CZA did not renew the recognition of Jaipur Zoo after November 1996 and did not grant recognition to Kota Zoo as the enclosure were old, antiquated and did not meet the requirement of spacious display. Both the Zoos were running without fulfilling the requisite norms.

(vi) As per Rule 10 (11), the height of boundary wall of Zoo should be at least 2 metres to avoid public/traffic nuisance.

(i) Rs 6.25 lakh were spent on construction of chain link fencing at Udaipur Zoo instead of 2 metre high masonry wall.

(ii) Height (1.5 metre) of the masonry boundary wall around Keoladeo National Park constructed during 1978-81 was not increased leading to wild life (15) and forest (327) offences during 1996-2000. Proposal (July 1999) of Rs 94 lakh for raising height of wall sent by the Divisional Officer was not approved.

Expenditure under area management was Rs 4.50 crore (69 per cent) against the

provision of Rs 6.50 crore.

4.3.3Non-observance/violation of codal provisions

vii)

As per Rule 10 (31) fullfledged

veterinary facilities including

hospital and treatment rooms

were to be provided to Zoos.

The facility was not provided in Jaipur and Jodhpur

Zoos. During 1996-2001 (upto June 2000), there

were 373 causalities in Zoos in the State for want of

regular medical facility. A Veterinarian was working in

Jaipur Zoo against post sanctioned for Nahargarh

Biological Park having no animal. Request of

Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF), Zoo, Jodhpur

(July 2000) for full time Veterinarian was not

acceded to due to paucity of funds. (viii) Rule 10 (37) of CZA prescribed

keeping of animals with mates.

Of 5 tigers and one tigress at Udaipur Zoo, the

tigress was shifted (April 1997) to Jodhpur Zoo

ignoring the provision.

Particulars Expendi- Irregularities noticed ture

A. Unfruitful expenditure (i) Construction of alternate

route of 31 km

(August 1997)

374.50 To avoid casualties (20 during 1996-2001) of wild animals in road accident and to maintain bio-diversity and flora and

fauna in Sariska Tiger Project, the work of upgradation of

alternate route (31 km) was undertaken through PWD. Expenditure of Rs 374.50 lakh (February 1999 to March

2001) was incurred against estimated cost of Rs 428 lakh

(Rs 350 lakh Central share and Rs 78 lakh State share). Of

this expenditure, Rs 27.55 lakh were irregularly spent on

unrelated items. The route was not utilised as paver work

of 6 km road was not completed for want of State share of

Rs 67 lakh (September 2001) and stay granted by Munsif

Court, Thanagazi (April 2000).

(ii) Pay and allowances of range staff of Mandrayal

(Ghadiyal Project)

(1998-2000)

6.00 To conserve and protect the Ghadiyal in Chambal river from Kota to Dholpur, annual plans for 1998-2001 under National Chambal (Ghadiyal) Project were not approved

by the GOI. Expenditure of Rs 6.00 lakh on pay and

allowances of the staff of Mandrayal (Ghadiyal) Range

during 1998-2001 proved unfruitful (upto January 2001).

B. Blocking of funds (iii) Development of

Nahargarh Biological Park

(NBP)

261.48 Against Administrative and Financial sanction of Rs 222

lakh (December 1993) for development of Nahargarh Bio-

logical Park, the project prepared by Avas Vikas Sansthan

(1997) was not approved by CZA as the designs of the animal enclosures etc. were not as per norms. Items of

projects executed during 1993-2000 under State plan after spending Rs 261.48 lakh were lying incomplete and Park

was not developed.

(iv) Construction of Rescue Centre at NBP

(July 1999-March 2000)

100.00 For rehabilitation of 30 lions and 20 tigers rescued from circus, the CZA provided Rs 100 lakh for construction of

rescue centre. Keepers house, office building, meat house

and treatment room, store and 4 paddocks constructed at a

cost of Rs 43 lakh-(including cost of material) were lying

incomplete (November 2000). Unspent balance of

Rs 57 lakh was kept in Personal Deposit Account of the

DCF, Zoo, Jaipur.

The functioning of Zoos and Wild Life Sanctuaries is governed by the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 (Act) and Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 (Zoo Rules). It was noticed that Rules were not being followed and there was gross violation of

the provisions of Act/Zoo Rules as mentioned below:

4.3.4 Irregularities in execution of works/purchases, etc. During test-check, irregularities amounting to Rs 7.67 crore were noticed in execution of works, purchases, etc. as summarised below:

(Rupees in lakh)

(Rupees in lakh)

(v) Purchase of Tranquilizer

Gun

1.00 In Jodhpur Zoo, Rs 1 lakh were advanced (February 1999) to firm 'A' without inviting tender/calling quotations. Neither gun was supplied nor advance refunded (March 2001) by the firm.

C. Irregular/avoidable/extra

expenditure

4.3.5 Improper working conditions

(i) Zoos

In Jodhpur Zoo, one tiger died (June 1999) of skin disease as the water in moats of its

enclosure was highly contaminated. Animals were still being kept in the same

enclosure (March 2001);

In Bikaner Zoo, death of 25 Black buck on 25 March 1999 due to attack by stray dogs

was noticed on account of improper security (June 2001);

Out of 7 Cheetal transported (2 September 1999) from Zoo, Jaipur to Deer Park,

Chittorgarh, 4 died in transit due to improper enclosure facilities;

6 Chinkara transferred (11 August 1999) from Zoo, Jaipur to NBP without approval

of the CZA and evaluation of enclosures. One died in transit and 3 found dead

during 13 to 16 August 1999 due to presence of panther around the enclosures which

indicates improper transport and enclosure facility. No enquiry was initiated.

(ii) Sanctuaries

There was shortfall of 44 per cent in guards (mainly of patrolling staff) and 26 to 69

per cent in other cadres. Further, the department had not specified the duties and

responsibilities for field staff in absence of which activities performed by patrolling

staff could not be evaluated. No specialized training programme on protection and

conservation of wildlife was introduced.

The State Government decided (August 1994) to arm the forest officials to provide

psychological deterrent to forest offenders and poachers. No arms were provided to

protection staff though in the divisions test-checked 60 guns and 7 revolvers were

lying in the divisional store. No training for handling the arms was imparted.

(vi) Construction

of boundary wall of

NBP

7.86 The lowest tendered rate (July 1997) of firm 'A' at Rs 849.46 per running metre (RM) was not approved and the work was

got executed through the Rajasthan State Bridge and

Construction Corporation Limited (RSBCC) at Rs 1124.88

per RM resulted in extra cost of Rs 7.86 lakh on 2853 RM

wall through RSBCC. (vii) Providingwater in existing holes for wild life fordrought measure

12.55 Instead of providing water in existing holes Rs 12.55 lakh (out of Rs 15.53 lakh) were irregularly utilised on construction of new water holes for harvesting water for future in Sariska Tiger Project in 2000-2001.

(viii) Wire fencing in Desert National

Park, Jaisalmer (1996-

2000)

3.68 As per Basic Schedule of Rates, 1995 and 1998 of Jodhpur (DDP) Circle, the payment for wire fencing was to be made per unit point on angle poles. Due to wrong interpretation based on distance between two poles and irregular revision of unit rate (November 1999) per running metre, extra payment of Rs 3.68 lakh

was made.

Wireless sets/hand sets were not provided to 75 Beats* (100 per cent) of Sariska and 44 Beats (85

per cent) of RTR (Core) Sawaimadhopur in absence of which regular tracking report and any

unlawful event were not communicated to Control room/Directors of sanctuaries. No record of

message/tracking report was being maintained in Sariska. 375 wildlife and 16706 forest offences

were registered during 1996-97 to 2000-2001 in the divisions test-checked. No evaluation/analysis

of offences/offenders was done to improve the mechanism and to check the offences. No research

was done in connection with flora and fauna, behaviour and migration of wildlife, impact of

tourism and running of vehicles in wildlife area.

No evaluation/ research of offences to improve the mechanism was conducted.

These points were referred to the Government in July 2001; reply had not been received

(December 2001).

Management of Forests

Summary Para

Forest cover in Delhi is only 5.9 per cent of total geographical area. Plantation by the forest

department was unsystematic and the department did not fix any annual targets for it. The

Department did not maintain even the basic records like plantation journals, measurement books,

register of trees etc. In the absence of such vital control documents, coupled with many other

irregularities like getting the plantation work done by contractors in contravention of the laid

down procedure, expenditure on plantation was doubtful. Inadequate watering and fencing

arrangements coupled with non-testing of soil prior to plantation contributed to the low survival

rate of plantations. Cases of tree cutting and forest offences increased while penal action against

the offenders was inadequate. Compensatory afforestation was deficient. The department also

failed to remove the existing encroachments and to prevent new encroachments.

Highlights

The forest cover in Delhi is only 5.9 per cent of the total geographical area of 1483 sq. km. as against 33

per cent envisaged in the National Forest Policy.

The forest department has failed to stop encroachment on the forest land. 7.56 sq. km of forest land is still

under encroachment. Another 209 acres of forest land has been diverted to various Government

departments in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The plantation activity by the department was unsystematic and unplanned. This has resulted in low

survival of plantation ranging from 36 to 53 per cent only.

Plantation work was given to two contractors by the South Division, against the policy of plantation being

done departmentally.

The Tree Authority did not carry out any census of the existing trees. The cases of cutting of trees

increased from 1738 in the year 1995-96 to 13683 in the year 1999-2000.

Delhi State Wastelands Development Board was set up in July 1992 without any wasteland survey and

without identifying the wastelands in Delhi. Though the Government decided to wind up the Board in

June 1998, the Forest Department did not initiate any action as of September 2000.

The department purchased materials worth Rs. 92.64 lakh without any specific requirements and without

following prescribed purchase procedures. The materials are still lying unused with the department in the

open space due to lack of proper storage facilities.

Introduction

3.20 Department of Environment, Forests and Wild life was set up in March 1987 and was

entrusted with the work of improving the forest cover and protection of flora and fauna of Delhi

under various statutory laws like Indian Forest Act, 1927; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;

Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. The major functions of the

Forest Department are: (i) Plantation; (ii) Protection of forests; (iii) Soil conservation and; (iv)

Landscaping of a Wildlife Sanctuary. Besides, the Forest Department is also functioning as a

nodal agency to coordinate the function of Ridge Management Board for management of ridges,

Tree Authority for preservation of trees in entire Delhi through Deputy Conservator of Forests,

notified as Tree Officer, and Delhi Waste Land Development Board for afforestation of areas

under jurisdiction of the Board. The C&AG‟s report of 1994 contains a review of the department.

The department has not sent its action taken report on it so far.

Organisational set up

3.21 The Department functions under overall charge of the Secretary, Department of

Environment, Forest and Wildlife with Conservator of Forests as head of the Department and the

three Divisions viz: Central, South and West each headed by a Deputy Conservator of Forests.

These Divisions are further divided into ten Ranges under the charge of Forest Ranger/ Deputy

Forest Ranger. Besides, the Department has two Assistant Conservators of Forest and one Soil

conservation officer. Total strength of the department as of August 2000 was 901 including 787

labourers.

Scope of Audit

3.22 The records maintained by the department relating to various activities of forest management for

the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000 were test checked in audit at headquarters of the department and in all

the three divisions during June to August 2000 in order to examine the schemes/ plans implemented by

the department.

Financial Management

3.23 The following table gives the financial outlay and actual expenditure for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000.

Table - 3.7: Financial outlay viz-viz actual expenditure

Rupees in lakh

Year Budget sanctioned Total Budget Actual Expenditure Total Expenditure Savings

Plan Non Plan Plan Non Plan

1995-96 553.75 29.79 583.54 373.96 42.00 415.96 167.58

1996-97 1907.50 47.40 1954.90 1424.88 38.83 1463.71 491.19

1997-98 473.00 580.49 1053.49 396.53 566.71 963.24 90.25

1998-99 318.00 664.27 982.27 275.71 602.50 878.21 104.06

1999-00 660.65 631.57 1292.22 530.78 606.76 1137.54 154.68

Total 3912.90 1953.52 5866.42 3001.86 1856.80 4858.66 1007.76

3.24 The department could not utilize the full budget allocation under the schemes and persistent

savings were noticed in all the years from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 ranging between 8.56 to 28.17 per

cent. While the savings under non plan heads were negligible, under plan the savings ranged from

13.30 to 32.47 per cent. The savings were due to non/part implementation of the schemes.

Idling of plan funds with the MCD for over four years.

3.25 The non-plan expenditure of the department increased from Rs. 42 lakh to Rs. 606.76 lakh

during the years 1995-2000, whereas the expenditure under plan schemes increased from Rs. 373.96

lakh to Rs. 530.78 lakh only during this period. The exceptionally high budget provision under plan

schemes during the year 1996-97 was for removal of encroachment in Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary. The

Forest department paid a sum of Rs. 10.70 crore to MCD for shifting of the Jhuggies from Bhatti

Wildlife Sanctuary to some other place in September 1996. There was no progress in the matter as of

September 2000 and this amount of the Forest department has been lying blocked with MCD since

September 1996.

Non-implementation of working plans

3.26 The department did not prepare working plan containing information about the geology of the

area, composition and condition of crop, utilisation of produce, various operations involved,

valuation of the crop etc, for the last ten years, as required by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In

the absence of the working plans no worthwhile advance planning could be done. The department did

not even have any forest manual to prescribe the rules and procedures for functioning of the

department and maintenance of the records.

Unsatisfactory preservation and protection of forest land

3.27 As per the State of Forest Report 1999 of the Forest Survey of India, the forest cover in Delhi

increased from26 sq.km. to 88 sq.km. during 1995-2000. This increase is mainly due to protection

provided to the Asola Bhatti Sanctuary and plantation efforts made in the Northern & South Central

Ridges. The increase, however, is still inadequate considering that the forest cover worked out only to

5.9 per cent of the geographical area of 1483 sq.km. which is far below the objective of 33 per cent as

envisaged in the National Forest Policy. The department has not fixed any specific annual targets for

the area to be covered.

3.28 The Forest department decided to constitute 7777 hectares of Ridge Area as Reserved Forest

under section 16 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 in May 1994, and 17.5 acres in March 1996. However,

there was delay in settlement of the claims despite the appointment of a forest settlement officer for

this purpose and no notification specifying the definite limits of the forest and declaring the area to be

a reserved forest was issued. The department in its reply in March 2001 has stated that the settlement

of claims is a semi judicial work and the legal process involved resulted in delays in the settlement of

claims. Fact however remains that no progress in the matter has been made after May 1994 when the

decision to constitute Reserve Forest was taken.

Encroachment on forest land

Out of the total forest cover of 88 sq. km 7.56 sq. km. of forest land is under encroachments

3.29 7.56 sq. kms. of forest land which constituted 8.59 per cent of the total forest cover in Delhi was

under encroachment including encroachment by Government Departments. The department made no

efforts to remove the encroachments.

3.30 The Conservator of Forests himself constructed a four room office building illegally on the forest

land measuring 50 sq.mt. over the Northern Ridge Reserved Forest in December 1998 at a cost of Rs.

2.06 lakh and also spent a sum of Rs. 1.69 lakh on renovation of the building. The building was

demolished as per orders of the Minister in May 1999 and the entire expenditure of Rs. 3.75 lakh was

rendered wasteful. The Minister also ordered for fixing of the responsibility in this case and for

recovery of the above amount from the officer/ official responsible for this illegal act. The Department

stated in September 2000 that the matter was still under investigation by vigilance department.

3.31 During the year 1997-2000 six works as detailed in Annex-I regarding fencing for plantation

and protection of forest were undertaken and an amount of Rs.20.35 lakh was spent upto March 2000

but the works could not be completed due to land dispute/ encroachment. The department not only

failed to remove the encroachments but also awarded the works on disputed/ encroached lands

resulting in wasteful expenditure of Rs. 20.35 lakh.

3.32 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, envisages prior approval of Government of India for any non

forest activity within the area of any forest. The records of forest department revealed that there were

16 cases detailed in Annex-II involving 209.09 acres of land where forest land was used for schools,

community centres, gaushalas, and even for Government departments like Delhi Vidyut Board and

Municipal Corporation Delhi without prior approval of Government of India in violation of the Act.

Mismanagement of Plantation Activities

3.33 The major activity under forest department is raising of plantation in forest area. The increase

in tree cover is dependent mainly on the success of these plantations. As per VIII five-year plan 30

lakh trees were to be planted during this period. However, the department did not fix specific annual

targets for plantation. The following table indicates the trees planted and their survival during the last

five years as reported by the forest department.

Table - 3.8: Trees planted and their survival

Year Plants planted Survival Percentage of survival

1995-96 224233 90200 36

1996-97 237656 128402 53

1997-98 349452 192576 51

1998-99 297491 124736 46

1999-00 298696 160028 49

Total 1407528 705942 47

The department has not prescribed any method to correctly assess the survival of plantations.

3.34 During 1995-2000, the department planted about 14 lakh plants but due to inadequate watering,

fencing arrangements and non-testing of soil, survival during this period ranged between 36 to 53 per

cent only. Moreover, in some ranges the survival rates of plants were very low ranging from 9 per cent

to 30 per cent as against 80 per cent survival rates prescribed by the department for plantation by

contractors. The forest department did not prescribe any norms/ guidelines to assess the number of

plants actually survived. In Flood Control/ PWD divisions where the plantation is done through

contractor, the plantation work is treated as complete only after three years, and actual survival is

worked out accordingly. The survival rates of plants reported by different range offices each year were

not reliable as these figures related to initial year of each plantation. Thus correct position of actual

number of plants survived each year could not be assessed because of this premature reporting. This

fact was also pointed out in the Report of the CAG ended March 1993 but no action has been taken on

it so far. The department incurred an expenditure of Rs. 128.36 lakh during 1995-2000, but due to low

survival, expenditure ranging between 47 to 64 per cent of the total amount has been rendered

wasteful. The matter calls for investigation by the Department for such low survivals and consequently

huge wastage, specially keeping in view that the work was got done through contractor who are not

allowed generally to be engaged for such works.

3.35 In the matter of maintenance of basic records the state of affairs of the department was most

pathetic and shocking. It did not maintain any of the basic records viz. Plantation journals,

measurement books, registers of trees etc. In the absence of basic records, audit could not verify the

actual number of trees planted at a particular site, the inventory of trees and the status of

maintenance. A review of the situation and necessary remedial action is urgently called for by the

Government.

3.36 The Development Commissioner ordered in July 1995 that plantation areas should be identified

with reference to definite block/ pockets etc. but the department failed to do such identification before

taking up the plantation work. The department also failed to select definite species for definite location

before taking up plantation work.

3.37 Plantation work is done departmentally, as stated by the DCF (Deputy Conservator of Forests)

(Hqrs.) in August 2000. However, the South Division of the department awarded the plantation work to

two contractors in June 1998 and July 1999 without preparing any cost estimates and work schedules.

This was done despite the fact that a force of 787 labourers was available with them for this purpose,

and audit scrutiny revealed that despite a total payment of Rs. 11.54 lakh made in these two cases, there

was deficient maintenance of the plantations resulting in low survival rates ranging from 20 to 53 per

cent in case of the above plantations of June 1998 and July 1999 as against 80 per cent prescribed by the

department.

3.38 As per agreements in both these cases the department was required to supply seedlings to the

contractor. It was, however, noticed that against 191550 plants stated to be planted by the contractors

only 4400 plants were issued in the year 1999-2000 as per records of the department. Contractor was

required to submit a list of vehicles used to transport the plants from the nurseries to the plantation

sites, and a list of workers engaged for the work. No such list was given by the contractor, and the

department also did not produce any records to prove that these plants were actually transported from

the nurseries to the plantation sites. Thus the authenticity of plantation of 191550 plants by the

contractors could not be verified in audit. In view of all these facts the entire expenditure of Rs. 11.54

lakh is doubtful as well as unwarranted. This also needs full investigation.

Incorrect assessment of materials procured for nurseries

3.39 The Forest department has 15 nurseries for nurturing plants. The plants grown in these nurseries

are used for plantation of trees in ranges and also distributed free of cost. The target and actual

production of seedlings in the nurseries during the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000 was as under:-

Table 3.9:Target and actual production of seedlings

Year Target as per annual plan No. of seedlings actually grown

1995-96 6,00,000 4,17,575

1996-97 8,00,000 5,30,338

1997-98 12,00,000 8,80,019

1998-99 12,00,000 8,62,938

1999-00 12,00,000 8,20,060

Total 50,00,000 35,10,930

The department not only failed to achieve the target of production of seedlings but also to assess the

correct requirement of materials for growing 35.11 lakhs plants. The department purchased

materials in excess of the required quantities, as per norms fixed by the department, and the excess

quantity of materials was also shown as issued to the nurseries and there was no stock in hand. The

extra expenditure of Rs. 11.43 lakh as per details in Annex-III incurred on the excess material was

entirely avoidable and infructuous.

Unsatisfactory implementation of Delhi Preservation of Tree Act, 1994

3.40 As per the provisions of Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, a Tree Authority was

constituted in July 1995 and Deputy Conservator of Forest was declared Tree Officer. The Tree

Authority is responsible for carrying out census of the existing trees and for the preservation of all

trees within its jurisdiction. Test check by Audit revealed that the Tree Authority has not carried out

any census of the existing trees. The cases of tree cutting increased from 1738 in the year 1995-96 to

13683 in the year 1999-2000. The cases of forest offences also increased three times from 12 to 36

during the period 1996-2000.

3.41 During the period 1995-96 to 1998-99, the Tree Officer had directed to plant 20531 plants/ trees

in lieu of felled trees, but only 360 plants were planted. Tree Officer failed to take necessary action to

ensure the plantation of these trees and to recover the cost of plantation from defaulters.

3.42 The Center for Development of Telematics (C-Dot) applied for permission of cutting of

approximately one lakh trees of shisham growing in 40 acres of their land. The Tree Officer, however,

granted permission in April 1999 for shifting of these trees to the departmental nurseries, as the plants

were very small in size. This work was to be done by the departmental employees under the

supervision of the Range Officers for further plantation during rainy season. It was, however, noticed

that as against one lakh plants only 30,250 plants were received in the nursery in June/ July 1999, out

of which 15,613 plants were damaged by pests/ animals etc. The department furnished no information

about the remaining trees. Thus, the department was unable to ensure the safe transplantation of these

plants and protection of this plantation.

3.43 The department received Rs. 10.00 lakh from M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. and Rs. 1.31

lakh from M/s Power Grid Corporation in March-April 1998 for plantation in lieu of felling of trees

by them. In the first case the work was awarded to the contractor against the normal procedure of

doing the work departmentally in July 1998 for supply of plants and plantation of trees. The total

amount paid to him was Rs. 6.83 lakh. A scrutiny of the records revealed that neither the plants

variety nor the number of plants mentioned in the contract matched with the actual plantation.

Physical verification by the department in July 1999 also indicated that only 2500 plants were

surviving against 25000 plants purchased and pits dug. Thus the entire plantation work was

questionable and payment of Rs. 6.83 lakh to the contractor was unwarranted particularly in view of

the departmental labour available. In the other case the work of plantation had not been taken up by

the department as of August 2000. Thus, the department could not ensure satisfactory afforestation on

behalf of the above agencies, despite receiving the payment of Rs. 11.31 lakh from them.

3.44 Against the provision of the Act for charging security deposit for ensuring regeneration of

the area and replanting, the department did not charge any security deposit upto December 1998

and started taking security deposit varying from Rupee one to Rs. 100 per tree from January

1999. No specific rates have been prescribed by the department. The department also did not

prescribe rates of cost for timber/ forest produce required to be recovered from the persons

causing forest offences. In two cases, the department failed to recover the cost of 320 safeda trees

from the offenders.

The department failed to ensure safe custody and timely disposal of the seized property

3.45 As per Section 15 and 16 of the Act, where the offence has been committed in respect of any

tree, the Tree Officer may seize and forfeit the tools, implements and conveyances used for

commission of the said offences, alongwith the tree or part thereof which has been severed from the

ground or trunks as the case may be. Any timber produce of the tree, tools implements or

conveyances etc. forfeited shall be disposed of by the Tree Officer in such manner as may be

prescribed in the Act. Audit scrutiny revealed that the department seized the following items, but did

not take any action to dispose them off and it did not ensure their safe custody.

Table 3.10: Seizure of forest

produce

Items Quantity Date of seizure Remarks

1. Sandal wood 14.82 quintals

November 1996 & August1997

The total value of these items was estimated as Rs. 2.37 lakh.

2. Katha wood 55 quintals December 1996 &

November 1997

The total value of these items was estimated as Rs. 0.55 lakh

3. Shisham logs 9100 Kg. May 1997 The truck carrying the shisham logs was released after

levying composition fee of Rs. 20000 without the approval of the competent authority.

4(i) Tree of neem, gular and shisham (ii) Implements

56 Nos. 23 Nos.

December 1996 The department did not settle the case even after the

expiry of more than four and a half year.

3.48 Memorandum of Association of the Board provided that the accounts of the Board shall

be audited by a Chartered Accountant to be appointed by the Governing Body. Despite

incurring total expenditure of Rs. 91.94 lakh from the year 1993-94 till September 2000 the

board did not maintain even the basic accounts records like Cash Book, Ledger, Assets Registers

etc. Records/ Registers relating to plantation and other activities of the Board were also not

made available to audit. All the plantation work of the Board was stated to be got done through

contractors, but the files relating only to one contractor who had done plantation work

amounting to Rs. 2.23 lakh during the year 1996-97 was made available to audit. In the absence

of records authenticity of the payments made could not be verified in audit.

3.49 In view of its overlapping activities with that of the 'Plantation and distribution of

seedlings' scheme, the Finance Minister of Delhi questioned the relevance of such a Board in

Delhi. The Government of India also asked for refund of the grant of Rs. 15 lakh in August 1999

due to unsatisfactory progress. The Principal Secretary (Planning) directed the forest department

to examine the proposal for winding up of this Board. The forest department agreed to this

proposal in June 1998 but did not initiate any action as of September 2000.

Unsatisfactory Progress in development of Wildlife Sanctuary

3.50 Forest Department notified 4707 acres of land in Asola and surrounding villages upto

February 1998 for establishment of a Wildlife Sanctuary. Although an expenditure of Rs.17.88

crore has been incurred on this scheme upto March 2000, the department even after twelve years

could develop no regular Wildlife Sanctuary. Rs. 10.70 crore released to MCD for removal of

encroachments on 261.25 acres is lying blocked with them. Rs. 234.66 lakh spent on construction

and maintenance of the boundary wall of the sanctuary also has not served the desired purpose as

there were about 300 breaches in the boundary wall.

Wasteful expenditure on needless purchases

Purchase of non consumable items worth Rs. 92.64 lakh without any specific requirement

3.51 Under the provisions of GFR (General Financial Rules), the purchases should be made as

per definite requirement. The Conservator of Forests, however, made the purchase of non-

consumable items worth Rs. 92.64 lakh without any specific requirement and without following

the prescribed purchase procedure as detailed below:

(a) Tree guards

3.52 The supplier M/s Bansal Stores requested the department in March 1999 that he would

supply 5000 tree guards at the rates at which he supplied tree guards to the department in June

1997. On his request, the Conservator of Forests placed an order for supply of 4000 tree guards,

without inviting open tenders, to the supplier on 31 March 1999 in order to avoid lapse of funds

at the end of the financial year. As per the Inspection Report, the tree guards supplied in March

1999 were found short of the required specification. The Conservator ordered for the supply of

tree guards for use in West Division whereas he supplied them to South Division as there was no

requirement of tree guards in West Division. South Division also stated in June 1999 that they

did not ask for supply of tree guards as there was no requirement in that Division also.

3.53 The department had drawn an advance bill for Rs. 21.33 lakh in March 1999 for making

payment to the supplier against a proforma invoice. The department did not account for the

advance drawal of money from Government account and it did not deliver the cheque to the

supplier as of September 2000. The department stated in September 2000 that the matter was

referred to the Vigilance Department for surrendering the advance drawal of cheque for Rs.

21.33 lakh. 4000 tree guards were lying idle in South Division as of September 2000.

(b) Tin plates

3.54 The Conservator of Forest placed an order for the supply of three lakh tin plates in

September 1998 with M/s Bansal Stores without ensuring availability of labourers for fixing them

on trees and without receiving indents for tin plates from the concerned divisions. He placed

orders for supply of a further three lakh tin plates in March 1999 just to utilise the savings

available with him before close of the financial year. The department utilised only 34755 plates as

of September 2000 and the remaining plates were lying in store.

3.55 The department made payment of Rs. 9.01 lakh for three lakh tin plates in March 1999 and

withheld another bill for Rs. 9.40 lakh for three lakh tin plates as enquiry was pending in respect

of this bill with Anti-Corruption Branch. Thus, the department incurred wasteful expenditure of

Rs. 7.96 lakh and committed to a payment of Rs. 9.40 lakh as the supplier served a legal notice

to the department on 27 April 2000 for payment.

(c) Chain links

3.56 The Conservator of Forest purchased steel chainlinks for Rs. 29.11 lakh in March 1999

through DGS&D without assessing their utility and requirement and just to avoid lapse of funds

at the end of the financial year. After purchase of chainlinks, the department was asking their

divisions in July 1999 whether they needed them. The chainlinks were lying idle with the

department as of September 2000.

(d) Barbed wire & G.I. pipe

3.57 The department also purchased 80 MT of Barbed wire worth Rs. 20.95 lakh in March 1999

and G.I. pipe worth Rs. 2.84 lakh in July 1999. These items were also purchased without any

requirement and are lying in stock as of September 2000.

No storage capacity

3.58 There was no storage godown for safe custody of the heavy and costly items like Tree guards,

Barbed wire and Chainlink and these items were lying in open space without any arrangement for

their safety against theft and weather.

WORKING OF FOREST DEPARTMENT

HIGHLIGHTS

State of West Bengal has only 9.4 per cent geographical area under forest cover against

33 per cent as stipulated in the National Forest Policy (1988). The Forest Department

(Department) is responsible for conservation and protection of forest area to

increase vegetative cover to mitigate the deficiencies of fuel, wood and fodder in

deficient areas, checking of soil erosion, etc. Lack of internal check led to defalcation,

and loss of forest produce. Working Plans (WPs) did not depict the full picture of the

forests. Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) were deployed as harvesting and

marketing agents of a Government company. Joint Forest

Management system failed to check illicit felling, failure of plantations, etc.,

improper utilisation of existing manpower, and deployment of large number of casual

daily labourers.

Preparation of budget without an input from field offices resulted in Rs 15.69

crore received from Government of India and State Plan remaining unutilised.

(Paragraphs 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.4.2)

Working Plan was not based on GOI guidelines and failed to disclose the factual status

of forests. The DFOs continued felling operation ignoring the WP prescription laid

down in the WP and Supreme Court verdict. Plantations were raised based on

commercial interests of WBFDC in violation of GOI guidelines. (Paragraphs 4.1.5.1,

4.1.5.2 and 4.1.5.3)

Despite 3284 Bonoshramiks remaining without specific duties the Department incurred

unauthorised expenditure of Rs 5.13 crore on deployment of additional Casual Daily

Labourers without concurrence of the Labour and Finance Departments. (Paragraph

4.1.6.1)

In the absence of important control records such as PlantationJournal, etc., the

Department could not assure the safe upkeep and maintenance of plantations. Fictitious

expenditure on this account could not be ruled out. (Paragraph 4.1.8)

Departmental failure to evict encroachers of 15404 hectare forest land resulted in loss of

forest produce of Rs 348 crore. (Paragraph 4.1.9.1)

Joint Forest Management failed to arrest the increasing trend of illicit felling. Lack of

proper motivation amongst the members of the Forest Protection Committee led to

loss of plantation raised at a cost of Rs 26.55 lakh. (Paragraph 4.1.10.1 (a), (b))

The Department failed to realise 496 hectare land and compensation of Rs 45.94 crore

from other departments for transfer of forest land to them. (Paragraph 4.1.11)

Valuable timber worth Rs 20.79 lakh was carted away with the connivance of

forest staff. (Paragraph 4.1.12)

Divisional Forest Officers were deployed to act as harvesting and marketing

agents of the WBFDC. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests unauthorisedly

transferred 73000 hectare of matured forest to WBFDC through a Memorandum of

Understanding executed without the concurrence of the Finance Department

depriving the Government of Rs 219 crore of revenue. (Paragraph 4.1.13.2)

Non-application of the delegated power for disposal of seized material by the authorised

Forest officers resulted in loss of Rs 14.12 crore. (Paragraph 4.1.15 (b))

Injudicious formation of a joint venture company led to loss of Rs 2.30 crore

in addition to a liability of Rs 7.90 crore. (Paragraph 4.1.16)

4.1.1 Introduction

West Bengal has a geographical area of 88752 square kilometres (sq. km). National

Forest Policy (1988) stipulated that 33 per cent of the geographical area should be under

forest cover. The State has actual forest cover of 8349 sq. km (9.4 per cent) against the

recorded forest cover of 11,879 sq. km (Reserve forests–7054 sq. km. + Protected

forests–3772 sq. km. + Unclassed State forests–1053 sq. km.). Thus, the State has 3,530

sq. km degraded forest area. The Forest Department is responsible for management of

forest area through regeneration, afforestation, checking of soil erosion,

water conservation and to increase vegetative cover through farm forestry and strip

plantation, to mitigate the fuel wood and fodder needs of rural people. They are also

responsible for preventing degradation and destruction of forest and manage wild life and

biodiversity.


The Principal Secretary, Forest Department is in overall charge of the Department. The

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) is the head of the Directorate and

Controlling Officer who is assisted by Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief

Wild Life Warden, Chief Conservators of Forests (CCF), Conservators of Forests (CF)

and Divisional Forest Officers (DFO). The Department reorganised its territorial

jurisdiction in November 1995 and had 51 divisions and 17 circles as of December 2000.

There are territorial (40), Soil Conservation (3), Silviculture (3), Working Plan (3) and

Monitoring (2) divisions. West Bengal Forest Development Corporation (WBFDC)

was created for harvesting and marketing forest produces.

4.1.3 Audit Coverage

Functioning of the Department was reviewed in audit through test-check of records of

the Secretariat, Directorate, 2 Chief Conservators of Forests,8 Conservators of

Forests2 and 28 divisional offices 3 for the period from 1996-99 (approximately 53

per cent of the offices have been test checked). Audit findings are discussed in the

succeeding paragraphs.

4.1.4 Financial management

4.1.4.1 Poor budgetary performance

Details of budget grant and expenditure during 1996-99 were as under:-

Expenditure

Excess (+)

Non- Plan

State Plan

Central Sector/ Centrally sponsored (CS)

Total Non- Plan

State Plan

CS Total Savings (-)

( R u p e e s i n c r o r e ) 1996-97 52.00 42.01 7.05 101.06 50.41 34.84 7.10 92.35 (-) 8.71

1997-98 60.39 23.55 9.43 93.37 64.14 21.81 4.98 90.93 (-) 2.44

1998-99 75.67 27.29 13.62 116.58 70.00 29.35 9.18 108.53 (-) 8.05

The Department failed to utilize Rs 15.69 crore (13 per cent) from the plan funds received

from the Government of India and State during 1996-99.

4.1.4.2 Preparation of budget without input from field offices

Bengal Forest Manual (Manual) stated that the budget estimate will be prepared by

the PCCF and sent to Finance Department and to the Secretary, Forest Department. For

this purpose he was to receive the division-wise estimates from the CFs who were to

receive the inputs from the DFOs.

Scrutiny revealed that none of the divisions submitted the budget statements during 1996-

2000 to CF. The Conservators of Forests and the PCCF prepared the budget estimates at

their level without any input from the field units

4.1.4.3 Unauthorised transfer of funds

Any unspent balance (savings) out of budget provisions, which was likely to lapse, was to be

surrendered by the PCCF. Scrutiny revealed that 3 DDOs drew Rs 43.39 lakh out of the

allotted funds by charging to proper Head of Account and paid the same to the WBFDC for

future utilisation to avoid the lapse of the budget grant. In reply the Government accepted

the audit point.

4.1.5 Planning

4.1.5.1 Working Plans and Wild life Management Plans


29

Working Plan assists each officer of the forest divisions to ascertain nature of forest,

silviculture system, yield and volume table, stock, felling periodicity, etc. It is prepared for

20 years and approved by the Government of India (GOI) before commencement of any

work within the forest. The last working plans of the Division were approved in 1999 for

20-year period of 1997-98 to 2017-18.

(a) Scrutiny of Working Plan (WP) of 95 divisions revealed that the DFOs of Working

Plan Divisions did not frame the WPs as per the guidelines of GOI and were deficient in the

following respects :

The WP did not define the silviculture system. The DFO had to follow the same in

consultation with the Silviculture Division. The DFO was given full authority to select the

felling coupe in consultation with the Forest Protection Committee (FPC). The WP only

indicated the length of the trees and breast height and girth without indicating their age and

maturity period. The WPs gave the DFOs full authority in selecting species according to site

condition. They could consult the higher authority only if indigenous species did not come

up properly. The WP did not make any enumeration neither for growing stock for herbs, etc.,

and endangered species nor for the existing species indicating the year of plantation. The

WP did not assess the production potentiality of barren land to feed the forest

industries and further the Department did not make any WP for Social Forestry.

The Department had to prepare Management Plans (MP) for Wild life sector viz. National

Park (NP), Sanctuaries, etc. In West Bengal there are 2 NPs and 6 sanctuaries. The

Department did not prepare any Management Plan since 1996-97 for Buxa Tiger Reserve

(BTR) and Sunderban Tiger reserve (STR). The Department had been implementing „Eco-

Development Project‟ in BTR area with World Bank assistance without any such plan.

However, it prepared „Prescription for annual operation‟ in STR for the period of 1997-2000

which was approved by GOI excluding the felling operation. Thus, neither the State

Government nor the GOI scrutinised the plans before according approval.

(b) Each Range office is required to maintain „Stock Map‟ as per GOI guidelines

depicting the area and year of plantation, soil texture, etc. None of the Range offices under

the test audited divisions maintained such „Stock- map‟. The DFOs failed to ensure the

preparation of Stock map and the CFs and PCCF did not monitor to ensure the compliance

of these instructions. In the absence of stock maps, the divisions are not formally aware of

the details of soil texture, species, site quality, age of plantation, etc. Thus, the

management of the forest land was not based on formal and organised information.

4.1.5.2 Violation of Working Plan guidelines

(a) The Government of India (GOI) inter-alia directed (August 1998) that “The Forest

Policy of India” aims at conservation and does not aim at “revenue from forests”;

therefore, the GOI initially did not allow any felling operation in South Bengal. On the

repeated requests of the State Government, GOI agreed for felling in South Bengal up

to June 2000 subject to the condition that (a) felling should be completed by 31 March,

each year, (b) the Department should prepare volume table and yield table within the


30

aforesaid time schedule. However, no volume table and yield table were prepared by CF,

WP as of November 2000.

Scrutiny revealed that Kharagpur Social Forestry Division continued the felling

operation beyond April each year during 1996-2000. Though the STR was not allowed

felling operation by GOI, they operated felling in 3000 hectare during 1996-99

unauthorisedly.

Supreme Court of India issued a verdict (1996) that felling operation should not be done

without approved WP. Though, Management Plan of BTR expired during 1996-97,

they made canopy operation, a kind of felling in 20 hectare (1998-99) in violation of the

verdict of the Supreme Court.

These call for investigation.

4.1.5.3 Plantation in violation of GOI guidelines

As per GOI guidelines plantations should be created in mixtures to preserve the

environment. Scrutiny revealed that 46 divisions created 830 hectare plantation (1999-

2000) with the funds provided by the WBFDC. The plantation comprised of 75-80

per cent principal species (Eucalyptus and Akashmoni) and 20-25 per cent non-timber

forest produce species as per the model prescribed by the WBFDC on commercial angle.

The DFOs in South Bengal region raised the plantation as per this model violating the

guidelines of the WP and GOI.

Government confirmed (November 2000) that plantations were raised keeping in view the

commercial benefit of the WBFDC since they had raised loans from West Bengal

Infrastructure Development Corporation at high rate of interest. This speaks of the

bankruptcy of planning by the Department.

4.1.6 Human resource management

The Department had strength of 8899 employees in position as of March 1999 against the

sanctioned strength of 11054. Scrutiny however revealed that the Department made budget

provision as per the sanctioned strength. There were huge savings in 1996-97. The

consequent savings during 1997-99 were used for payment of wages of newly absorbed 3284

„Bonoshramiks‟ and arrears due to ROPA 1998.

4.1.6.1 Unauthorised deployment of casual labourers

The departments of the State Government are debarred form engaging casual daily

labourers (CDL) except with the concurrence of the Labour and Finance Departments.

Forest Department absorbed (April 1997) 3284 CDLs as Bonoshramiks leaving behind

531 CDLs. Scrutiny of the wage bill revealed that the Department unauthorisedly

engaged approximately 2311 CDLs in 1997-98 and 1972 CDLs in 1998-99.

Unauthorised expenditure of Rs 5.13 crore was incurred on engagement of additional

CDLs without approval of the Labour and Finance Departments over and above the 531


31

CDLs already in employment, despite the fact that PCCF had failed to allot specific duty to

the 3284 CDLs regularised as Bonoshramiks.

4.1.6.2 Idle manpower

The Department created Forest Village Division, Jalpaiguri in 1985 for the development of

forest villages. With the introduction of Joint Forest Management (JFM) system,

territorial divisions undertook all infrastructure development works of forest villages. The

Department did not wind up the division nor re-deployed the staff (44 staff of different

categories) leading to infructuous expenditure of Rs 70.32 lakh.

4.1.7 Programme implementation

The Department implements all its schemes and programmes through the DFOs. The

PCCF monitors the implementation through the concerned CFs and two monitoring

divisions of the Directorate. It implemented 17 schemes and programmes during 1996-99

out of which implementation of 4 major schemes are discussed below :

4.1.7.1 West Bengal Forestry Project (WBFP)

Implementation of WBFP was commented in the Audit Report (Civil) of

Government of West Bengal for the year ending March 1998.

The Department obtained approval from the World Bank during mid-term review

(1995) of the implementation of WBFP for construction of a „State Headquarters at Salt

Lake‟ at a cost of Rs 3 crore with the loan assistance from the World Bank. Accordingly it

started the construction of the building and received re-imbursement of Rs 1.65 crore from

the World Bank till closure (December 1997) of the project. The Department completed

(June 1999) the construction of a 6-storied building at a cost of Rs 4.13 crore with funds

from the State Plan. It neither shifted the Headquarter office nor any other office of the

Directorate to the new building as of September, 2000. It handed over 4 floors of the

building to the Judicial Department, free of lease rent and the rest were lying vacant. Thus,

loan from World Bank and State Plan funds were misutilised. The Government confirmed

(November 2000) that the building remained unutilised by the Directorate.

4.1.7.2 Area oriented fuel wood & fodder plantation (AOFFP)

GOI identified 6 districts of the State as deficit area in fuel wood and fodder for

implementation (w.e.f. 1989-90) of the AOFFP to bridge the gap between the demand and

supply of fuel wood and fodder. The Department incurred Rs 9.18 crore for raising

AOFFP on 9192 hectare during 1996-99. Six divisions during 1996-99 extracted 145874

cum fuel wood from felling in 6747 hectare plantation and sold through auction. Test check

of transit passes (TP) revealed that DFOs issued 80 per cent of such TP to carry fuel wood

outside the fuel deficit districts and even outside the State. DFOs did not impose any

restriction on the movement of fuel wood. Transfer of most of the fuel wood to non-priority


32

areas defeated the purpose of the scheme. The Government stated that the scheme did

not include any stipulation for imposition of any restriction on fuel wood movement.

The reply was not tenable because it was inherent in the scheme.

4.1.7.3 Strip Plantation-unjustified and irregular payment

The Department raised 22000 ha strip plantation at a cost of Rs 9.85 crore with the

financial assistance from International Development Association (IDA) during 1982 to

1988. Performance of the scheme was commented upon in the Audit Report (Civil), 1984-

85.

The scheme, inter-alia, provided that on maturity, the poles, timber, etc. would be the

property of the Government who would dispose it off by auctioning. The sale proceeds

after deducting the cost of creation, and harvesting, etc. would be distributed among the

beneficiaries selected by the Panchayat Samitis.

Scrutiny revealed that no beneficiary committee had been formed till date. However, the

Cooch Behar Social Forestry Division irregularly paid Rs 88.12 lakh to Panchayat

Samitis out of sale proceeds of Rs 1.50 crore during 1996-98, in stead of to the

beneficiary committees which were yet to be formed.

4.1.7.4 Farm Forestry

The Department raised seedlings for distribution amongst the poorer sections of rural sector

having land measuring up to 0.4 hectare (3 bighas) at the rate of 750 seedlings per family.

(a) Test check in 4 divisions revealed that they did not assess any requirement

before raising the seedlings. Consequently 32.82 lakh seedlings remained undistributed

during 1996-2000 resulting in wasteful expenditure of Rs 32.82 lakh.

(b) The farmers were required to create plantations with the seedlings received

from the Department. Scrutiny of records of Extension Forestry Division, Purulia

revealed that the survival percentage of the plantation raised by the farmers varied between

6 and 43 per cent. Poor survival of seedlings resulted in an unfruitful expenditure of Rs 31.32

lakh between 1997 and 1998.

4.1.8 Subversion of a control mechanism -- Plantation Journals

Plantation Journal (PJ) to be maintained for each plantation by the Range Officers is a

record of all events undertaken for creation of plantation e.g. previous history, soil

character, nursery, fertiliser utilised, species and spacing, checking by higher authorities

including survival percentage, etc. This is a very important control document to ensure

watch over proper execution of plantation works.

Scrutiny of 235 PJs in the test audited divisions revealed that 90 per cent of such journals

mostly contained only boundary map, etc. but did not contain the relevant information

regarding the details of plantation, etc. The DFOs and CFs are to ensure that the journals

are properly maintained. In absence of required details, survival percentage of the


33

plantations including present status of the plantations was not monitored by DFOs.

Further, in the absence of details in the PJs it was not clear how the DFOs could

ensure that the expenditure shown against plantation and other works was not

fictitious. Despite the fact that the Audit Report ending March 1998 reported non-

maintenance of PJ/Asset Register and fictitious expenditure on maintenance of non-

existent plantation, the Department/PCCF did not initiate any action for proper

maintenance of such an important control record.

4.1.9 Encroachment

4.1.9.1 Loss due to encroachment

A group of people encroached 200 hectare forest land under BTR and developed

orange orchards on the encroached portion. The Division failed to evict the persons from

the area.

Scrutiny further revealed that different departments and people encroached 15,404

hectare forest land under 139 divisions. The DFOs failed to evict the encroachers from such

encroached area. Due to such encroachment the Department had to suffer a loss of forest

produce for Rs 348 crore.

4.1.10 Joint Forest Management

4.1.10.1 Illicit felling

(a) The Department expected that with the introduction of Joint Forest Management

(JFM), the members of the Forest Protection Committee (FPC) would take effective steps to

check the illicit felling. Following table would indicate that illicit felling had in fact been

increasing in 14 divisions after introduction of JFM, although Rs 4.34 crore was paid to

the beneficiaries of JFM between 1996-99.

Year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99

Number of cases of illicit felling 6042 7533 9015

The WP of such divisions did not contain any volume table. Therefore, the divisions did

not assess the volume of timber lost by the Department from such illicit felling or their

financial value.

(b) Loss of plantation

Scrutiny in 4 divisions revealed that survival percentage of plantation on 374 hectare

varied between 0 and 27 per cent. Failure of the divisions to motivate the members of

FPC resulted in illicit grazing and eventual loss of the plantations raised at a cost of Rs

26.55 lakh during 1996-98.


34

4.1.11 Compensatory afforestation

Four divisions transferred 1174 hectare land to other departments subject to the conditions

that they would give equivalent land and compensation to Forest Department for

raising compensatory afforestation.

Scrutiny revealed that the divisions received 678 hectare land and Rs 3.64 crore

as of April 2000 against 1174 hectare land and Rs 49.58 crore of compensation receivable.

The divisions raised afforestation on 326 hectare only. The Baikunthapur Division could

not raise compensatory afforestation on 90.50 hectare land received from Irrigation and

Waterways Department as the same was erosion prone being situated on riverbank. The

PCCF failed to enforce the receipt of non-forest land and the compensation which

ultimately led to loss of forest cover.

4.1.12 Theft of forest produce

Cooch Behar Forest Division permitted the Indian Air Force for felling trees standing in the

Hasimara station and its sale (1998). Marking list of the trees to be felled included 21.76

cum of sal timber and did not contain any teak trees. Range Officer, Nilpara range issued

transit passes for carriage of timber obtained from felling of trees on the Air Force land.

Scrutiny of transit passes with marking list of trees revealed that the Range Officer

had allowed 150.54 cum sal and 38.21 cum teak timber against the availability of only

21.76 cum of sal timber in the marking list. Thus, the Range Officer was party to the theft

of forest produce valuing Rs 20.79 lakh.

4.1.13 Undue financial aid to WBFDC

4.1.13.1 Gross violation of financial rules

The WBFDC was created by the Government of West Bengal as harvesting and selling

agent of the Department. However, it is seen that the Department is presently engaging the

DFOs and their staff to harvest the timber, arrange for its sale on behalf of the corporation.

In South Bengal region, DFOs and staff of 9 divisions collected Rs 23.58 crore during 1996-

1999 as sale proceeds of timbers and deposited the amount in the bank account of WBFDC.

There was no order allowing the use of Government officers and staff for harvesting and

selling the forest produce on behalf of the WBFDC. However, it was noticed that the

WBFDC also levied service charge, etc. on the Department out of the sale proceeds

collected by the departmental staff.

Further scrutiny revealed that the WBFDC deducted Rs 2.47 crore from the aforesaid

revenue as 10 per cent towards service charges, 10 per cent towards overhead charges and 10

per cent towards interest on working capital. It was entitled to Rs 36 lakh as interest on

working capital of Rs 3.61 crore invested during 1996-98 for 5-6 months.


35

The Secretary, Forest Department stated that there was no violation of Financial

Rules as the WBFDC refunded the said revenues after deducting their service charges

which was payable as per decision of the Price Fixation Committee in October 1998. This

is not tenable as the WBFDC did not discharge any service to the Government and in

fact the cadre officer of the Department are rendering service to the WBFDC. Secondly,

it is not understood how the Government officers and the staff would have time to attend

to such work after attending to their regular allotted duties

4.1.13.2 Unauthorised execution of MoU

The PCCF executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the WBFDC

(March 1999) for transferring 73000 hectare matured Sal forest/plantations and 9000

hectare degraded forest land within the forest divisions in 513 districts of South Bengal on

lease for 12 years. As per the MoU the WBFDC would avail of the full benefit of

collecting the sale proceeds of 73000 hectare matured Sal forest/ plantations.

Scrutiny of records of the Department revealed that concurrence of the Finance

Department had not been obtained (November 2000). The Department also did

not finalise the lease rent. Despite that DFOs of 9 divisions deposited the sale-proceeds

of timber amounting to Rs 8.28 crore during 1998-99 in the accounts of WBFDC.

Leasing out of mature Sal forest/plantations without prior concurrence of the

Finance Department deprived the Government from fetching a revenue of Rs 219 crore

calculated on the basis of per hectare yield during 1998-99.

In reply Government stated (November 2000) that the project having components

of harvesting, regeneration, support activities and infrastructure development was

conceived to mobilise resources for sustenance of JFM. The reply was not tenable in

absence of any approved Government policy and non- availability of finance concurrence.

4.1.14 Defalcation of revenue

As per codal provisions an officer who maintains Cash Book is responsible to collect cash

and issue receipts. Range Officers are authorised to maintain the Cash Book in the

Divisional office and one designated as Attached Forest Ranger (AFR). DFO, Coochbehar

however unauthorisedly delegated the responsibility for collection of sale-proceeds of timber

to the Deputy Ranger/Forester (DR/FR) working under the AFR. The division office

detected a defalcation in January 2000. Audit worked out the defalcated

amount to be Rs 11.52 lakh between 1997-2000 and determined the modus operandi as the

defalcation came to the notice of the DFO in the same month of the audit (January 2000).

ADFO issued 23 Money Receipts (MR) books during April 1996 to September

1998 for collection of Government Revenue. The DR/FR after issuing the original receipt

for the amount tendered by the timber merchants tampered the duplicate and triplicate


36

copies of the receipts. AFR submitted the monthly accounts with the tampered duplicate

copies of the receipt without any checking. Assistant to Accounts Section was responsible

for checking of Range accounts with related receipts. Although correction/tampering of

figure were done repeatedly neither the AFR nor the 3rd Assistant pointed it out. Thus,

failure of internal control resulted in defalcation of Rs 11.52 lakh.

4.1.15 Loss to Government

(a) Successful bidders are required to deposit 25 per cent of bid money immediately on

completion of auction. Scrutiny of records of Kurseong Division revealed that timber

collected from seizure, etc. was put to auction in 1997-98. However, 105 bidders did not

pay the bid money nor did they turn up to lift the materials. Such materials were not put to

re-auction. Due to continuous weather action for 3 years the timber had lost its utility

leading to loss of Rs.69.31 lakh.

(b) Scrutiny of records of 1417 divisions revealed that they seized 216 vehicles

and timber valuing Rs 7.64 crore between 1996 and 1999. Authorised Forest

Officers were empowered to dispose of such confiscated materials through public auction

under the Indian Forest Act 1927. They did not initiate any action to dispose of such

material through auction or otherwise till November 2000. Inaction on the part of the

Authorised Officers led to loss of Rs 14.12 crore (vehicles and timbers) due to

deterioration in quality of timber through exposure to rain and sun.

4.1.16 Injudicious investment

The Department formed (1982) a joint venture company namely, West Bengal Pulpwood

Development Corporation Ltd (WBPDC) between WBFDC and Titagarh Paper Mills

(TPM) (50:50). Working Capital of WBPDC was Rs 82 lakh. It also took a loan of

Rs 2.25 crore from three banks with Government guarantee to start the business.

However, WBPDC stopped functioning in 1990-91.

The Department paid Rs 2.30 crore between 1994-96 to the WBPDC as ways and means

advances for future participation in the equity of the closed company to pay the wages

of their staff and meet the liabilities of the banks. As WBPDC had not been functioning,

the banks filed money suits for recovery of the debt. Liability of the WBPDC was Rs

7.90 crore as of March 1996 without any scope of revival. Thus, the Department, in

addition to the liability of Rs 7.90 crore suffered a loss of Rs 2.30 crore.

In reply, Government stated (November 2000) that the value of standing plantations raised

by WBPDC is Rs 5.40 crore. However, the reply was not tenable because the recurring

expenditure on the idle staff will aggravate the position without any return.

4.1.17 Irregular hiring of Vehicle

Scrutiny of 7 divisions revealed that they unauthorisedly hired 17 vehicles during 1996-1999

and paid hire charge of Rs 39.07 lakh. Concurrence from the Finance Department, which

was mandatory for engagement of hired vehicles was not obtained. The


37

expenditure of Rs 39.07 lakh was unauthorised and irregular.

4.1.18 Monitoring

The PCCF is responsible for proper monitoring of the programmes of the Department.

There are two Monitoring Divisions and one Conservator of Forests to aid the PCCF in

this function. Non-maintenance of key-documents viz. Stock-maps, plantation journals,

improper maintenance of stock register of receipt-books and transit-passes, etc. indicated

that the Department failed to monitor the programmes properly.

4.1.19 Conclusion

The forests were not properly managed since Working Plans were not properly drawn to

depict the factual position of the forests and to help the DFOs to execute the work within

the forest. Government revenue was transferred to the accounts of WBFDC violating the

provisions of Financial Rules. A vast area of forest was leased out to WBFDC

without the concurrence of the Finance Department.

Date post:	04-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CAG environment Audit reports on...

Documents