RTI for Nagaland Forest Department — Intanki NP, Amur Falcon, Community Forests and Wildlife Records

Nagaland is a state of remarkable ecological paradoxes. It has some of the highest forest cover of any Indian state — an estimated 75 per cent of its land area under tree canopy — yet the Nagaland Forest Department administers only a tiny fraction of that forest, because the vast majority is owned communally by village councils under the constitutionally protected customary law of the Naga people. Nagaland is home to one of the world's most celebrated conservation success stories — the transformation of the Amur falcon mass harvest at Doyang reservoir from ecological catastrophe to international eco-tourism — yet the government Forest Department played a supporting rather than leading role in that transformation. It has only one national park (Intanki NP), yet its community-owned forests support biodiversity that rivals any formally protected landscape in India.

This combination of limited government jurisdiction, constitutionally protected community land rights, extraordinary wildlife heritage, and a Forest Department that must coordinate with village councils rather than command them makes Nagaland one of the most complex — and most interesting — contexts for using the Right to Information Act, 2005. This guide explains what the Nagaland Forest Department does, what records it holds, how to file RTI effectively, and how to pursue appeals through the Nagaland State Information Commission (Nagaland SIC).

Nagaland Forest Department: Governance and Jurisdiction

The Nagaland Forest Department operates from its headquarters in Forest Colony, Kohima – 797001. The apex officer is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), supported by additional PCCFs handling specialised wings (Wildlife, CAMPA, Social Forestry), Chief Conservators of Forests (CCFs), and Conservators of Forests (CFs) at the circle level. At the operational level, each forest division is headed by a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), supported by Range Forest Officers (RFOs) and Forest Guards.

For Intanki National Park, a Field Director (or Wildlife Warden/DFO designated for the park) leads management. The office of the Chief Wildlife Warden, attached to the PCCF's headquarters, is responsible for overseeing wildlife protection and permitting across all protected areas.

The single most important jurisdictional fact about the Nagaland Forest Department is that its authority extends only to notified government forests — Reserved Forests declared under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Protected Areas (National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries) notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The far greater area of community-owned forest land — owned by villages under Naga customary law and protected by Article 371(A) of the Constitution — is outside the Forest Department's direct administrative control. This shapes every aspect of how RTI can be used in Nagaland's forest governance context.

Intanki National Park: Nagaland's Flagship Protected Area

Intanki National Park (also referred to in some official documents as Ntangki NP) in Peren district is Nagaland's only national park and its most significant formally protected ecosystem. Covering approximately 202 square kilometres of sub-tropical to semi-evergreen forest in the Naga Hills foothills along the Assam border, Intanki NP is significant for several reasons.

The park's wildlife includes Indian elephant (Elephas maximus), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus), gaur (Bos gaurus), hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), Asiatic bear, and a rich diversity of birds. Tiger occupancy in Intanki NP has been a subject of camera-trap surveys by the Wildlife Institute of India and state forest authorities as part of the All India Tiger Estimation programme.

Intanki NP faces significant pressure from encroachment by surrounding villages — a challenge specific to Nagaland, where the communities immediately adjacent to the park often own the land bordering it under customary law, and the boundary between the notified National Park and community land is sometimes contested. Illegal settlement, shifting cultivation, poaching, and timber extraction within the park's boundaries are recurring management challenges. The park also faces threats from infrastructure development — road construction and other projects in the foothills of Peren district sometimes cut through or approach the park boundary.

For RTI purposes, Intanki NP is one of the most productive subjects. The Field Director's office or the DFO (Wildlife) holds: wildlife census and camera-trap survey data; records of wildlife deaths (natural mortality, poaching, road kill); post-mortem reports; FIRs filed under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; human–wildlife conflict incident records and ex-gratia payment status; management plan documents; encroachment action taken reports; and correspondence with the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) regarding clearances and management plan approvals.

Dzukou Valley: Shared Landscape Between Nagaland and Manipur

The Dzukou Valley, straddling the Nagaland–Manipur border south of Kohima, is one of the most visually spectacular and ecologically pristine high-altitude landscapes in the entire northeast. Known colloquially as the 'Valley of Flowers of Nagaland,' the valley lies at an altitude of approximately 2,450 metres and is characterised by rolling grasslands, seasonal streams, and an extraordinary diversity of wildflowers — most famously the Dzukou lily (Lilium macklineae), a species endemic to this region, which blooms from June through August.

The valley has no permanent human habitation, and access is managed informally by the surrounding village councils of both states. It has become one of Nagaland's most important eco-tourism destinations, attracting trekkers and naturalists from across India and abroad. However, Dzukou Valley is not a formally notified protected area, which means the Nagaland Forest Department's formal jurisdiction over it is limited — the valley sits largely on community-owned land under customary law.

Nonetheless, the Forest Department has coordination responsibilities for eco-tourism management, fire prevention, and enforcement against illegal resource extraction in the valley's vicinity. In January 2021, a significant wildfire swept through parts of Dzukou Valley, causing extensive damage to the grassland and forest ecosystem. The Forest Department's response — including firefighting operations, coordination with village councils, post-fire assessment, and restoration efforts — generated official records accessible via RTI.

Dzukou Valley's shared nature means RTI filed with the Nagaland Forest Department will obtain Nagaland's side of the picture; information from Manipur's side would require a separate RTI with the Manipur Forest Department.

Fakim and Singphan Wildlife Sanctuaries: Border Landscapes

Fakim Wildlife Sanctuary in Kiphire district, covering approximately 642 square kilometres of dense forest near the Myanmar border, is one of Nagaland's most ecologically significant but least-visited protected areas. The landscape supports elephant, gaur, Asiatic bear, clouded leopard, and a range of primates. The sanctuary's location along the Indo-Myanmar border creates particular challenges: cross-border wildlife trafficking (wildlife articles flowing in both directions), elephant movement across the international boundary, and limited infrastructure for patrol and enforcement.

Singphan Wildlife Sanctuary in Mon district, also near the Myanmar border, shares similar landscape characteristics and challenges. Mon district is home to the Konyak Naga people, who have historically had strong traditions of hunting and have been the focus of conservation engagement programmes.

RTI to the respective DFO offices can surface: patrol records and anti-poaching camp deployment; records of cross-border wildlife trade cases referred to WCCB or Customs; elephant movement and human–elephant conflict records; and any coordination records with Myanmar's Forestry Department through central government channels.

Pulie Badze Wildlife Sanctuary near Kohima protects an important ridge-top forest that is home to the Blyth's tragopan — Nagaland's state bird — and several other montane bird species. Being close to Kohima, it is under particular pressure from encroachment and urbanisation. RTI can obtain encroachment action records, wildlife monitoring data, and management records from the relevant DFO's office.

The Amur Falcon Conservation Story: From Mass Harvest to Global Icon

The story of the Amur falcon at Doyang reservoir is one of the most remarkable wildlife conservation transformations in recent decades, and it unfolded largely through community action rather than government enforcement. Understanding this history is essential for knowing what RTI can reveal about the government's role.

The Migration

The Amur falcon (Falco amurensis) breeds in Siberia and northeastern China and migrates each autumn to its wintering grounds in southern Africa, crossing the Indian subcontinent and then the Indian Ocean — a non-stop oceanic crossing of several thousand kilometres. The Doyang reservoir in Wokha district, Nagaland, sits on a critical leg of this migration route. In October and November each year, millions of Amur falcons descend on the trees and power lines around Doyang to roost, feed on termites and dragonflies, and build up fat reserves for the ocean crossing. Estimates of the roost size have varied, but multiple studies have suggested roost counts in the millions — potentially making it the largest Amur falcon roost site in the world.

The Mass Harvest

Until 2012, the Doyang roost was also the site of one of the world's largest mass harvests of wild birds. Hunters from villages around the reservoir, particularly Pangti village in Wokha district, would set mist nets and other traps at night to capture the roosting falcons by the hundreds of thousands. A 2012 field survey documented that in a single season, an estimated 120,000 to 140,000 birds were being killed and sold — as meat at local markets, or traded further afield. The birds are small enough that large numbers are needed to justify the effort, and the scale of the harvest reflected the extraordinary density of the roost rather than any particularly unusual intensity of hunting by local standards.

The Transformation

The year 2012 proved to be the turning point. Field documentation by Nagaland-based conservationists, including Rokohebi Mukhia and Bano Haralu, and subsequent engagement by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) and others, brought the scale of the harvest to national and international attention. Critically, rather than pursuing a pure enforcement approach, conservationists engaged directly with the village council of Pangti. The village council — the legitimate governing body for the community under Naga customary law — held an internal discussion and voluntarily declared a ban on Amur falcon hunting. Without the village council's decision, no amount of Forest Department enforcement could have changed the situation, because the roosting sites were largely on community-owned land.

The transformation was rapid. Pangti village went from being one of the centres of the harvest to becoming a conservation exemplar within two years. The annual migration is now celebrated as the Changlangshu Festival (named for the Amur falcon in the Lotha Naga language), attracting birders, naturalists, and tourists from across India and internationally. Pangti village has developed homestays and local eco-tourism infrastructure. Other surrounding villages followed Pangti's lead in banning the hunt.

The Forest Department's Role and What RTI Can Reveal

The Nagaland Forest Department's formal role in this transformation has been relatively limited compared to the village councils' own decision-making — but the department has nonetheless generated official records that are accessible via RTI. These include any formal Memoranda of Understanding or coordination agreements with BNHS, WII, or other conservation organisations; monitoring data received or compiled by the Forest Department on roost size at Doyang; any FIRs registered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for Amur falcon hunting (the species is listed in Schedule IV of the WPA 1972, which prohibits hunting); records of funds received for eco-tourism infrastructure or conservation support; and correspondence with the National Tiger Conservation Authority, Wildlife Institute of India, or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) regarding Doyang.

RTI filed with the CPIO of the DFO, Wokha division, and with the CPIO of the PCCF's office at Kohima will surface whatever official records the government holds. The answers may reveal both the strengths and the gaps in the government's formal engagement with what is, ultimately, a community-led success story.

Community Forest Ownership: The Core Institutional Reality

No understanding of RTI and forest governance in Nagaland is complete without grasping the land tenure reality. Unlike any other major Indian state, Nagaland does not have a default government ownership of forest land. Most land in Nagaland is owned communally by village councils — the traditional governing bodies of Naga villages — under Naga customary law. This community ownership is constitutionally protected by Article 371(A), which prevents Parliament from enacting any law regarding the ownership and transfer of land and its resources in Nagaland without the assent of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly.

The result is that the Nagaland Forest Department — in contrast to, say, the Maharashtra or Karnataka Forest Departments — administers only the limited area that has been formally notified as Reserved Forest or Protected Area. The vast green landscape visible in satellite imagery of Nagaland is overwhelmingly community forest, not government forest.

Implications for CAMPA

The community land ownership has a direct and significant effect on the implementation of compensatory afforestation under CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority). CAMPA funds collected from project proponents diverting forest land in Nagaland must be used for compensatory afforestation — but the government has limited land available for government plantation because most of the land is community-owned. The Forest Department must either plant on the limited government forest land available, or enter into agreements with village councils for afforestation on community land. RTI can reveal how the Forest Department has navigated this constraint — what CAMPA funds were received, how they were spent, whether survival audits were conducted, and whether any official correspondence exists regarding the community land availability problem.

Implications for FRA 2006

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006) recognises the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who occupied and cultivated forest land before 13 December 2005. In Nagaland, the implementation of FRA 2006 is particularly complex because much of what would elsewhere be classified as forest land is already under community ownership by Naga tribes through customary law — not through formal government title. The interaction between FRA 2006 rights claims, Article 371(A) customary land protections, and the Forest Department's notified forest boundaries has generated ongoing ambiguity and, in some cases, official correspondence between the Forest Department, the SDLC, and state-level bodies.

RTI can surface the Forest Department's own records on FRA 2006 claim processing in Nagaland — the number of individual and community rights claims forwarded for field verification, the field verification reports submitted, any written objections filed, and any official correspondence regarding the interaction between FRA rights and customary ownership under Article 371(A).

Traditional Hunting and the Conservation Transition

Naga tribal communities across the state have historically maintained strong hunting traditions. Game has been a significant part of traditional subsistence and cultural practice, and a range of species — including deer, wild boar, bear, large cats, primates, birds, and reptiles — have been hunted. Some of the most charismatic species have faced significant pressure: the great hornbill (Buceros bicornis) and wreathed hornbill (Rhyticeros undulatus), both large and conspicuous birds, were traditionally hunted for their casques and feathers, which feature prominently in Naga warrior and ceremonial dress. The slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis), a CITES-listed primate, has been targeted for the pet trade and traditional medicine.

The Hornbill Festival of Nagaland, held each December in Kisama Heritage Village near Kohima, was deliberately designed in part as a conservation and cultural promotion event — and it has had a measurable effect on attitudes toward wildlife. The festival now explicitly discourages the display of hornbill feathers and hunting trophies in traditional dress, and conservation messages are integrated into the programme.

The Forest Department's Wildlife Crime Branch is responsible for enforcement under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. RTI to the DFO's offices and the Chief Wildlife Warden's office can obtain: the number of FIRs registered for wildlife offences by species; the nature of the offences; the stage of prosecution; and the custodial records of confiscated wildlife articles held at the Chief Wildlife Warden's office. These records, aggregated over multiple years, can reveal trends in wildlife crime, species most at risk, and the effectiveness of enforcement action.

How to Identify the Correct CPIO

The Nagaland Forest Department has SPIOs/CPIOs designated at each office level:

• For Intanki NP records (wildlife census, poaching FIRs, management plan, encroachment ATRs): file with the CPIO, Field Director/DFO (Wildlife), Intanki National Park, Peren district.
• For Fakim WLS records: file with the CPIO, DFO, Kiphire division.
• For Singphan WLS records: file with the CPIO, DFO, Mon division.
• For Pulie Badze WLS and Kohima area forest records: file with the CPIO, DFO, Kohima division.
• For Amur falcon and Doyang records: file with the CPIO, DFO, Wokha division.
• For Dzukou Valley coordination records: file with the CPIO, DFO, Kohima division (the Nagaland side of the valley falls within Kohima district).
• For state-level CAMPA utilisation, wildlife headquarters records, FRA 2006 statewide data, or any state-level aggregated information: file with the CPIO, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Forest Colony, Kohima – 797001, Nagaland.

If you are unsure of the correct division, you may file with the PCCF's office, which is required under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to transfer your application to the appropriate CPIO within 5 days.

How to File RTI with the Nagaland Forest Department

Step 1: Draft Your Application

Use the sample RTI above as your base. Be specific about the forest division, district, financial year, and protected area. Separate each information request into a clearly numbered point. Vague requests such as "all records related to forests" are easily evaded with equally vague responses. For CAMPA queries, specify the financial year range. For FRA queries, include the claim number and claimant's name where possible. For Amur falcon queries, specify the years for which monitoring data is sought.

Step 2: File Online or by Post

The Nagaland Forest Department offices may be accessible through the central RTI portal at rtionline.gov.in, which handles applications to state governments that have been connected to the central portal. Check the portal for current connectivity. Alternatively, submit a physical application by registered post addressed to the CPIO of the relevant DFO's office or the PCCF's office at Forest Colony, Kohima – 797001. Enclose the ₹10 application fee as an Indian Postal Order (IPO) payable to the Accounts Officer, Nagaland Forest Department, or as otherwise specified by the department. BPL cardholders are exempt from the fee; attach a copy of your BPL card.

Step 3: Track the Timeline

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO must respond within 30 days of receipt. Where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, the response is due within 48 hours (Section 7(1) proviso). Retain your postal tracking or online reference number.

Step 4: First Appeal Under Section 19(1)

If the Forest Department does not respond within 30 days, or provides an incomplete, evasive, or improperly exempted response, file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the Nagaland Forest Department — typically the Conservator of Forests (CF) for the relevant circle. The First Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of decision or expiry of the 30-day response period, whichever is applicable. No fee is required. State specifically what was withheld or inadequately provided, and attach copies of your original application and the CPIO's response.

Step 5: Second Appeal to Nagaland State Information Commission Under Section 19(3)

If the FAA's response is absent or unsatisfactory, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act with the Nagaland State Information Commission (Nagaland SIC) within 90 days of the FAA's order or the expiry of the FAA's response period. No fee is payable. The Nagaland SIC is constituted under Section 15 of the RTI Act as Nagaland's State Information Commission and has full powers to direct the disclosure of information and to impose penalties.

Critical reminder: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction over the Nagaland Forest Department or any other Nagaland state public authority. Filing with the CIC by mistake will result in rejection and wasted time.

Jurisdictional Note: Nagaland SIC — Not CIC

The Nagaland Forest Department is entirely a state public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. This means:

• All First Appeals go to the FAA within the Nagaland Forest Department hierarchy.
• All Second Appeals go to the Nagaland State Information Commission (Nagaland SIC) — constituted under Section 15 of the RTI Act.
• The CIC has no jurisdiction over any Nagaland state department, including the Forest Department.

Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the Nagaland SIC can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day of delay or non-compliance, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000, on the CPIO personally — recoverable from the CPIO's own salary, not from the department. The SIC can also recommend departmental action against the CPIO and direct the Forest Department to furnish specific records that were unlawfully withheld.

Practical Tips for an Effective Forest RTI in Nagaland

• Specify the notified forest area, not community land. Because most of Nagaland's forested land is community-owned, ensure your RTI is directed at records that the Forest Department actually holds — records relating to notified Reserved Forests, Protected Areas, permits issued, and government schemes. Asking for records about community forest management internal to a village council will not produce a response from the Forest Department.
• For Amur falcon queries, ask for both government-side records and coordination records. The most useful RTI for Doyang will ask not just for monitoring data but also for MoUs or cooperation agreements with NGOs, records of funds received for eco-tourism, and any FIRs for hunting — the combination reveals the government's formal relationship with the conservation initiative.
• For FRA 2006 queries in Nagaland, acknowledge the Article 371(A) complexity. Phrase your RTI to acknowledge that you are seeking records specifically in relation to claims over notified government forest — this narrows the query to what the Forest Department has jurisdiction over and avoids responses that deflect on grounds of customary law.
• For CAMPA queries, ask specifically about community land constraints. A targeted question asking whether the Forest Department has noted any constraints in implementing compensatory afforestation due to limited government land availability — and whether any official correspondence on this issue exists — may surface records that would not otherwise be disclosed.
• For wildlife crime queries, ask by species. Nagaland's wildlife crime cases are most useful when disaggregated by species — hornbill, slow loris, Amur falcon, elephant ivory, bear bile, pangolin. A species-specific request will produce a more specific and more verifiable response than a general "wildlife crime cases" query.
• For Intanki NP queries, ask for the management plan approval status first. Knowing whether the park has a current approved management plan — and if not, why — sets the context for all other management-related RTI queries.
• Consider filing at both the DFO and PCCF level for important matters. The DFO's office holds field-level records; the PCCF's office holds policy-level and aggregated records. For matters of significant public interest — such as the state of Intanki NP's wildlife protection or the full picture of CAMPA utilisation — filing at both levels gives the most complete picture.