JOIN USThe celebration that followed the Indian government’s announcement of a steep rise in the country’s tiger population has somewhat been dampened by an independent group of wildlife scientists and institutions which have questioned the credibility of the survey methodology. The London-based Oxford University, the Indian Statistical Institute and the Wildlife Conservation Society say that the index-calibration method followed by India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) is outdated and is prone to serious flaws. The NTCA has denied it and reiterated that its model is credible and a host of scientific methods has been followed to keep the errors to a minimum.
While the experts on both sides fight it out, what should people make of it? Do we go with the official census numbers and be happy that the tiger population is increasing or remain sceptical in tandem with those expressing their reservations over the official findings? One could have ignored the controversy if the issue had been of little consequence. But, what is in contention is a crucial component of India’s biodiversity in which the tiger occupies a crucial position. The tiger is also among the world’s endangered species and that gives the issue a sense of urgency. According to the official figures, the tiger population increased from 1706 in 2011 to 2226 in 2014, a rise of 30 percent – a spike that was proudly attributed to the various conservation measures during the period. The government has, naturally, not taken kindly to the doubters and the NTCA has come out strongly defending its methods. If the NTCA is cocksure that its figures are right, or at least within the acceptable window of errors, it should adopt the new methods being followed worldwide and prove to its critics that it was right in the first place.
It is necessary to lay all doubts to rest for more reasons than one. If the NTCA can prove that it was right it should not be seen as a snub to the sceptics. Rather, it would mean that the various conservation measures that the forest department has undertaken in recent years have been successful. On the contrary, if the forest department methodology is found to be wanting, proving the sceptics right, it should not be viewed as humiliation. Indeed, if the tiger figures are found to be far off the mark, it would mean that the department has to work out more foolproof methods of conservation. In other words, the controversy over the census figures must be turned into an advantage and a reassessment done in the interests of the tiger population.