Merger Of Project Tiger And Project Elephant Raises Concerns Over Loss Of Focus, Lack Of Expert Consultation

After more than a decade the idea was first floated, the Narendra Modi government last month merged the two flagship conservation programmes of Project Tiger and Project Elephant. 

The two conservation programmes have been bundled into a division under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) that would be known as Project Tiger and Elephant Division. This would put one officer in charge of conservation efforts for both the animals. 

In the past 15 years, tigers in India have more than tripled. In 2008, there were just 1,441 tigers in India. In 2023, India has three-fourth of the world’s tiger population with 3,682 stripped felines. Experts say this success story —thanks to the singular focus and subject experts at Project Tiger— is no longer assured as the singular focus from tigers is set to end. 

A person previously associated with the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) of the Government of India says it’s not just the tiger conservation programme that could be adversely affected.

“Elephants also have unique issues. In Maharashtra and Kerala, for example, the human-elephant clashes are an issue. In Uttarakhand, in recent time, elephants have moved to heights they were never known to inhabit. Moreover, elephants move around in herds whereas tigers live in demarcated territories. With the merger, there is a fear these intricacies of elephants’ issues might not be addressed with the singular focus that’s required,” says this person, requesting anonymity. 

A bad idea whose time has come?

Since 2014, the Narendra Modi government has done away with a number of practices of the previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, such as the National Advisory Council (NAC) —the infamous Super Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)— headed by Sonia Gandhi or the Planning Commission that was scrapped and replaced with the NITI Ayog.

One idea, however, has made a comeback from the UPA era: the merger of the Project Tiger and Project Elephant. The merger was proposed by the Planning Commission but was shot down in 2011 by the UPA government. 

In 2011, the members of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) had opposed the merger of Project Tiger, Project Elephant, and Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats proposed by the Planning Commission at the time. The NBWL members said the merger would be “a very retrograde step and would adversely impact efforts to conserve wildlife and nature, and the national animal in particular”, according to the minutes of the meeting accessed by Outlook. 

The minutes show that the then-Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forest informed the NBWL members in the meeting that the proposal had been shelved. 

Too many roles, little singular focus on animals

The Modi government has merged the Project Tiger and Project Elephant into one division known as Project Tiger and Elephant (PT&E) Division which would be headed by an additional director general of forest (ADGF)-rank officer. 

The in-charge of Project Tiger and Elephant Division would be known as ADGF (PT&E). 

The staff and divisional heads of Project Elephant will now report to ADGF (PT), whose designation has been renamed as ADGF (PT&E), according to The Indian Express, which adds the ADGF (PT&E) will also be the Member Secretary of the  National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).

The newly-made conservation tsar would thus be donning a number of hats. With so many duties, it would be tough to focus on any one job, say experts.

One of the key reasons for the success of Project Tiger, which celebrated its 50th anniversary earlier this year, has been the programme’s singular focus on tigers. Technically-competent officers were posted to Project Tiger who, along with the singular mandate for tiger conservation, were key to the rise in the numbers of the big cat.

An individual treatment of an animal, such as of tigers in Project Tiger, is required to address the unique crises associated with that animal, says Dr Amita Kanaujia, Director, Institute of Wildlife Sciences, University of Lucknow. She adds that the merger of Project Tiger and Project Elephant has effectively downgraded the two programmes. 

Kanaujia tells Outlook, “Tigers and elephants have different habitats and face different threats. They require different types of conservation efforts and a merger is not good. For example, I have worked on government projects of saras and vultures separately, but if you would have asked me take up a merged project of saras and vultures, I would not have taken it up because these are two very different projects and merging them would not do justice to either of the two. The same reasoning applies to tigers and elephants.”

Explaining the differences between tigers and elephants, Kanaujia says tigers live in a core area —a well-marked territory— that need to have a sufficient number of smaller animals as prey whereas elephants live in herds and are on the move. 

“For elephants, you need to ensure safe corridors for the movement of their herds. They are social animals. You have to ensure the availability of grass and vegetation so they don’t move into human settlements. On the other hand, tigers have different issues. In North India, they move into sugarcane farms and attack farmers when the smaller animals are less to prey on in forests, so tigers have to be treated differently than elephants,” says Kanaujia. 

The two animals, therefore, should have individual programmes, says Kanaujia, adding that when you treat an animal individually, you acknowledge its importance to the environment — which is set to be downgraded now. As for the reasoning that as tigers and elephants share habitat, the projects should be merged, she says the overlap of habitat is not much. 

“Most of the elephants are concentrated in the South, whereas tigers are mainly in the North and East. Sundarbans have no elephants. In Uttar Pradesh, we don’t have that much overlap,” says Kanaujia. 

Kanaujia also says there is no clarity how budget would be allocated after the merger and how much would be allocated to which animal. Since funding is a key contributor of success or failure of any project, any change in the allocation is bound to have consequences on conservation efforts.

Lack of expert consultation also a concern

The lack of consultation is also a cause of concern, says the person previously associated with the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), cited earlier in the story. The person says the government should make wide consultations part of environmental and wildlife decision-making. 

“The government will never take major decisions on atomic energy or space programme without consulting experts, but environmental and wildlife decisions are frequently taken without expert consultation. Even if the government does not seek public feedback, it should at least consult its own experts in government institutions and universities,” says this person, requesting anonymity.