NTCA Tiger Corridors 32 Pathways have become the latest focal point in India’s wildlife conservation and development policy debate. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has recently revised its definition of tiger corridors, narrowing recognition to only the 32 least-cost pathways identified in a 2014 report. This change, though framed as an administrative clarification, has wide-ranging implications for conservation science, environmental clearances, and industrial projects near tiger habitats.
Recent Developments of NTCA Tiger Corridors 32 Pathways
The NTCA has clarified that only the 32 least-cost pathways from the 2014 report and corridors recorded in Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) will now be officially recognised. By doing so, the authority has excluded numerous other scientific studies, including those by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the All-India Tiger Estimations (AITE).
This revision directly impacts development projects requiring forest clearance near tiger habitats, particularly in states like Maharashtra. Conservationists argue that this decision disregards the evolving scientific consensus that tiger connectivity is more complex than a fixed set of corridors.
Legal and Administrative Context
India’s Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 mandates that any project affecting tiger reserves or corridors requires approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SC-NBWL). In Maharashtra, the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) had already limited clearances to projects located within least-cost pathways, a policy that triggered legal challenges.
Cases currently being heard in the Bombay High Court highlight the tension between conservation law and developmental priorities. NTCA’s sudden shift—its volte-face—came after close court scrutiny and subsequent ministerial-level discussions. The new position is viewed as an attempt to bring legal and administrative clarity, but critics see it as a retreat from broader conservation commitments.
Impact on Development Projects
The redefinition of tiger corridors has provided relief to mining and industrial projects in central India. For instance:
- Western Coalfields Limited’s Durgapur open cast mine
- Lloyds Metals & Energy’s Surajgarh iron ore project
Both fall outside the revised 32 pathways, thereby avoiding stringent regulatory scrutiny. This easing of restrictions benefits industries but raises concerns among conservationists about habitat fragmentation and the long-term survival of tigers in the wild.
The NTCA’s move could accelerate infrastructure and mining projects, but it risks undermining India’s global commitments to biodiversity and climate action.
Scientific Studies on Tiger Corridors
Earlier NTCA affidavits acknowledged multiple scientific approaches to mapping tiger connectivity. For example:
- WII’s 2016 and 2021 studies: Used telemetry and satellite-based modelling to identify functional corridors.
- All-India Tiger Estimations (AITE): Integrated landscape-level data to highlight movement pathways across reserves.
- LRC Foundation, Nagpur (2022 study): Applied Circuitscape modelling, identifying 192 potential corridors in central India alone.
These studies reveal that tiger movement is not confined to a handful of routes but supported by a dense, complex network of pathways. According to researchers, about 30 tiger reserves and 150 protected areas depend on these corridors for genetic flow and survival of the species.
The decision to restrict corridors to only the NTCA’s 2014 report contradicts the very report’s warning that its listed pathways represented only the minimum essential routes, not the full picture of tiger connectivity.
Conservation and Policy Challenges
Conservation experts warn that the NTCA Tiger Corridors 32 Pathways approach undermines landscape-level planning. Tigers, as apex predators, require large connected habitats to ensure genetic diversity and reduce the risks of inbreeding. Narrowing the definition of corridors could lead to fragmented populations vulnerable to extinction.
The NTCA has stated that refinement of corridor maps based on updated AITE data is ongoing. However, these revisions are delayed by pending court proceedings and policy uncertainty. Meanwhile, infrastructure and mining projects continue to expand, often overlapping with tiger movement routes not recognised under the current framework.
This situation creates a policy paradox: while India celebrates its growing tiger numbers, the very connectivity essential for their survival may be undermined by development-friendly interpretations of corridor science.
Conclusion
The redefinition of NTCA Tiger Corridors 32 Pathways reflects the growing tension between conservation and development in India. While industries gain from relaxed restrictions, scientists caution that ignoring the broader connectivity network could erode decades of tiger conservation gains.
As the Bombay High Court examines this policy shift, and as the NTCA works on refining maps with AITE data, the debate over tiger corridors will remain at the heart of India’s conservation discourse. The future of India’s national animal depends not only on protected reserves but also on the invisible threads of connectivity that sustain its survival across landscapes.
