Save the Tigers Fund

Save the Tigers Fund
Name	Save the Tigers Fund
Formation	1996
Type	Non-profit organization
Headquarters	New York City
Leader title	Founder
Leader name	William G. Conway

Save the Tigers Fund

Save the Tigers Fund was a conservation nonprofit established to protect wild Bengal tiger and other tiger populations through funding, advocacy, and field programs. The initiative worked across landscapes in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and parts of Southeast Asia linking scientific research, community engagement, and policy campaigns. It collaborated with major institutions and agencies to support protected areas, anti-poaching efforts, and habitat restoration.

History

The organization emerged in the mid-1990s amid increased global concern following the CITES debates and the World Conservation Congress dialogues, inspired by high-profile conservation campaigns led by figures associated with the Wildlife Conservation Society and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Early activities reflected lessons from Project Tiger and were shaped by precedents set by the IUCN, the United Nations Environment Programme, and campaigns tied to the Global Tiger Forum. Influences included conservation science from researchers linked to Smithsonian Institution, field methodologies from Fauna and Flora International, and enforcement models promoted by Interpol and TRAFFIC. Major interventions were coordinated with national agencies such as the Ministry of Environment and Forests (India) and park administrations of places like Sundarbans National Park and Jim Corbett National Park.

Mission and Objectives

The stated mission prioritized preventing tiger extinction by supporting in situ conservation across priority landscapes identified by bodies like the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Global Tiger Initiative. Objectives included strengthening protected area networks modeled on Tiger Reserve frameworks, enhancing anti-poaching capacities similar to programs under Operation Cobra, and promoting community-based conservation akin to initiatives by Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy. The Fund emphasized science-driven strategies informed by studies from institutions such as Oxford University, University of Cambridge, and National Geographic Society researchers, while aligning with international agreements like Convention on Biological Diversity targets.

Conservation Programs

Programs ranged from habitat restoration in corridors between reserves—drawing on concepts used in Project Elephant corridors and Landscape Ecology studies—to support for camera-trap monitoring methods popularized in research at WCS Bronx Zoo and by technologists at Wildlife Conservation Network. Anti-poaching operations combined training curricula used by Royal Thai Police units and intelligence-sharing frameworks modeled after Interpol Wildlife Crime Working Group collaborations. Community engagement programs mirrored models from Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary outreach and village-conservation partnerships seen in Annapurna Conservation Area. Scientific components funded genetic analyses conducted at laboratories affiliated with Harvard University, telemetry studies similar to those by Panthera scientists, and population viability assessments used by IUCN specialists.

Partnerships and Funding

The Fund partnered with a network of NGOs, research centers, and government agencies including Wildlife Conservation Society, Panthera, WWF-India, TRAFFIC, and national parks administrations. Philanthropic backing came from foundations with precedents like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and corporate donors modeled after engagements between Conservation International and private sector partners such as HSBC in conservation banking. Multi-lateral collaborations referenced strategies from the Asian Development Bank and technical support mechanisms similar to those of the United Nations Development Programme. Academic partnerships involved departments at University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Stanford University, and regional institutions like Banaras Hindu University and Nepal Academy of Science and Technology.

Impact and Outcomes

Reported outcomes included increased patrol coverage in targeted reserves inspired by practices from Project Ranger and measurable changes in tiger encounter rates similar to those documented in Bandhavgarh National Park and Sundarbans National Park. Conservation science outputs contributed data used by the IUCN Red List assessments and informed policy briefings presented to ministries modeled after the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (India). Training programs enhanced capacities in anti-poaching modeled after units at Corbett National Park and influenced community-based management approaches seen in Kaziranga National Park adjacent initiatives. Collaborative monitoring efforts paralleled methodologies in studies published with partners like National Geographic and Science.

Criticism and Controversies

Critiques centered on debates familiar in conservation literature, such as tensions between fortress-conservation approaches reminiscent of controversies at Bandipur National Park and community-inclusive models advocated by Amartya Sen-influenced development scholars. Some stakeholders questioned donor-driven priorities similar to critiques leveled at programs funded by the World Bank and at public-private arrangements seen in eco-tourism controversies at sites like Tiger Tops and Sundarbans. Accusations included concerns about transparency paralleling issues raised in investigations of other NGOs and debates over effectiveness echoing critiques of large-scale initiatives such as the Global Tiger Recovery Program.

Category:Conservation organizations Category:Wildlife conservation