Weve all been reading and cheering the increase in tiger numbers reported by Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh this week. Theyre up to 1,706 in 2011,showcasing a gain of 295 tigers since Project Tiger gave way to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA). Yet,as an ardent conservationist,I am a little confused.
Tiger census numbers are a hugely important metric. Ecologically,they signify the presence of large tracts of intact and protected habitat in which the overall ecosystem can thrive. Monetarily,they attract tourism and government funds. Socially,they give the general public a measure of their eco-friendliness. For managers at the ministry of environment and forests,it is perhaps the most important performance metric. So let us all agree that the number packs a big punch.
The NTCA took over from Project Tiger amid intense government ire over widespread mismanagement and manipulation of results. A key reason behind its formation was a rallying cry against the fake numbers Project Tiger had been shamelessly disseminating. A new reporting standard was invented: tiger census via camera traps as against plaster casts of individual pugmarks. Quite like Jeffrey Skilling at Enron when he advocated mark-to-market accounting,the NTCA chose to break away from the standard market currency of pugmarks to camera-trapping. It was a brave and well-reasoned move. But in redefining the market currency,it also pounced on an unusual opportunity. Indias tiger valuation was pegged at roughly 4,000 prior to 2008 and it was brought down to 1,411: a decrease of over 60 per cent.
Although census figures are often portrayed (and interpreted) as an exact number,they are only numeric indicators that enable us to track trends. That number does not suggest that there are 1,706 tigers remaining in India and let us not make the mistake of considering it an exact estimate.
When the NTCA first released the new figure,it had to have a well-thought-out plan of how the enterprise value would trend itself in the coming years. But by redefining the currency and lowering enterprise value to rock bottom,the NTCA is sitting on a goldmine of an opportunity to preen itself because the only way forward from this abyss is an improvement.
Hence it is equally important that the NTCA clarify the source of gains in tiger numbers and clearly attribute a cause to the effect. To deserve true credit,the gains must be attributable to the fundamentals: better management,better operational efficiency in carrying out a tiger census and,of course,more rupees dedicated to the NTCA. Any additional gain has to be attributable to some external influence.
Yet there are factors not related to the fundamentals that can contribute to an increase in numbers,and these must not be used by the MoEF to blow its own trumpet unless it truly deserves to.
First is the increasing sophistication of the survey. Earlier efforts placed camera traps in select locations,and statistically extrapolated to areas not sampled. Given the suspicious environment in which camera-trapping was introduced,we must move forward with the assumption that the initial statistical methodology was conservative and not optimistic in its subtleties. This time round we may have placed more camera traps in the same area or covered a broader area with camera traps. This process will reveal the shortcomings of a relatively untested statistical system. Given the inbuilt conservativeness of the equations,we should expect a gain as the learning curve is climbed. The MoEF should not be allowed to attribute this statistical gain to better management and less corruption. It is purely a methodological evolution.
Second,the skill levels across the country in conducting a camera-trapping exercise were anything but uniform. Some regions clearly lacked people with the right skills and these skills would have improved in the past three years. Everything else being the same,these people will be more capable today in deriving tiger pictures out of the same geographical area than they were five years ago. Once again,gains resulting from this aspect are related to the learning curve and are not indicative of a broader ecological improvement.
The reason we must examine the NTCAs motives is that a lack of such scrutiny led us to the Sariska debacle. It may have been easier to manipulate a pugmark into an additional individual,but its not impossible with photographs
either! We can go on this route to DNA fingerprinting of tigers and never be free of fake numbers,unless a sustained scrutiny is maintained. The pugmarks sampling methodology was inferior to camera-trapping because gains could be easily forged. I hope we dont start down this route again.
The writer is a pharma consultant and wildlife expert express@expressindia.com
