Difference in methodology renders fresh wildlife census report futile

Although the Haryana forest department released a fresh wildlife census report on May 6, it is still not comparable with previous years’ data owing to the use of a different methodology.

Although the Haryana forest department released a fresh wildlife census report on May 6, it is still not comparable with previous years’ data owing to the use of a different methodology.

HT Image

According to a recent report, which compares the 2012 census data with that of 2007, the comparison in wildlife occupancy can be made only for the Shivalik belt and not for the Aravali region, thereby making the census another futile attempt by the forest department. The request for the comparable report was made nearly a month ago.

Classifying the data under two heads - occupancy and density, both in per sq-km area - the statistic under density for Aravali has ‘NA’ (not applicable) mentioned. Also, the statistics under the occupancy head cannot be compared as the statistics of 2007 is in terms of per sq-km and that of 2012 is in terms of number of beats surveyed. This is because there was no geographic information system (GIS) data available for the Aravali region.

“The request for a comparable report was made a month ago. Although defeating its original purpose, this report will now be comparable with future data. This is because the 2012 census used density methodology for the first time,” said Vinod Kumar, conservator of wildlife, Gurgaon forest department.

The report, brough out in collaboration with the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, compares the density of leopards, hyaena, jungle cat, jackal, fox, porcupine, mongoose, small Indian civet, pangolin, nilgai, chital, sambar, barking deer, goral, wild boar, langur, rhesus monkey, hare, peafowl, red jungle fowl and chinkara, in 482.75 km of area searched in the Aravali forest areas.

The wildlife census report of 2012, released in March, had adopted a new evidence-based methodology. Unlike the previous years, when the census was conducted division-wise, this year it was focused on forest areas only.

“This is why we cannot compare the present data with the previous years’ data as the methodology was different. The method used in 2007 was occupancy-based and not density-based. No one can say if the wildlife has increased or decreased in the Aravali,” said Bilal Habib, a scientist at WII. Explaining the reason behind adopting the new methodology, Kumar said: “This survey was evidence-based and not an absolute one. For instance, it is very difficult to trace carnivores as they come out only at night. Hence, we could only gauge their presence in a particular area through their pug marks and other signs, and not provide a fixed number of the species. Moreover, the absolute method is time-consuming and very expensive,” said Kumar.