The Elephant Task Force proposes to eventually ‘phase out’ the use of elephants in commercial captivity through a massive tightening of the law. Not surprisingly, owners are far from happy, and the State Forest Departments in a quandary.

The captive Asian elephant is something of a legal oxymoron. Few other wild animals, Schedule I species at that, are in such extensive commercial use. Some 3,500 elephants in India, mostly captured from the wild, have been trained by human ingenuity to ferry tourists, ‘bless’ the devout, parade in festivals and log timber in forest camps.

Not least because of the oddity of their position, this large section of elephants has slipped through the cracks in the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA). Whether it is ownership, trade, upkeep, or its use, the captive elephant is exempted from almost every provision the WLPA extends to wildlife.

Unlike all other forms of wildlife, elephants can be ‘owned’ privately while the WLPA specifies that all wildlife is the property of the Government. The only specific reference to captive elephants places them in the same category as bullocks, horses, camels, and other domesticated animals, or “vehicles” despite their very specific ecological needs. The fact, however, that these lacunae in the law have for so long remained unaddressed is indicative of an important cultural reality in India (and several Asian countries): the elephant has, over the centuries, become an integral part of well-entrenched traditional or religious practices and more importantly, a source of livelihood for thousands of mahouts and kavadis.

There are no precise figures for the number of captive elephants India has. But of the estimated 3,500 elephants, half are in northeast India, and another 900 in southern India. Northern and eastern India are thought to have between 200 and 300 each, while western India has some 80. Indeed, the dilemma that these creatures pose and the sheer numbers they represent-they account for approximately 10 percent of all elephants in India-make them impossible to ignore. It was only inevitable, therefore, that the first major report on the status and future of elephants in India, ‘Gajah,’ written by scientists, academics, and activists comprising the 12-member Elephant Task Force, should dedicate an entire chapter to the captive elephant. The report, submitted in August 2010 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, recommended among other things that the elephant be declared a “heritage animal.”

The report bases itself on the premise-one held by field biologists, scientists and scholars of elephant behaviour that elephants have unusual social complexity, significant cognitive abilities, that they are “self-aware individuals, possessing distinct histories, personalities and interests, and that they are capable of physical and mental suffering.”
Beginning here, the Task Force recommends a string of modifications to the WLPA in an attempt to bring within its umbrella the curious case of the captive elephant. The eventual goal, it adds, must be “the complete phasing out of elephants from commercial captivity.” This somewhat controversial proposition is appended with an acknowledgment, however, that “the elephant is integral to cultures, religions and livelihoods in many parts of India have a long tradition of elephant keeping and handling.” The chapter then sets itself the more immediate target of “improving their condition in captivity” by clamping down on their capture, taming, sale, transfer, and ownership.

The elephants used for logging operations in government forest camps are comparatively in better shape, owing perhaps to their proximity to their natural habitat. But the biggest chunk of captive elephants are in commercial captivity predominantly in temples, circuses, tour operations or used to beg for alms, and the condition of many of them is debatable. And studies have shown that the worst off are temple elephants, an estimated 1,200 of them-being farthest removed from their natural ecological needs. Tethered for days on end, their rearing is often unscientific and their nutritional status poor. This group of elephants is also prone to a variety of ailments from anaemia to foot-sores and tuberculosis. Every now and again there are unsettling reports of temple elephants going ‘beserk,’ breaking loose and even killing people while on a rampage.

The use of elephants in circuses has also caught the attention of the Task Force that has called for its ban. “This category of privately owned elephants should follow the precedent of phasing out as per the 1991 ban of the five categories of wild animals (lion, tiger, leopard, bears and monkeys) in circuses.” It also recommends the prohibition of elephants in weddings, unregulated tourism, public functions, begging, and other forms of entertainment.

If the Task Force has its way, no one but the government would ‘own’ an elephant. The Task Force recommends that the word ‘ownership’ be replaced with ‘guardianship’. Individual State Forest Departments will take over ownership and also establish ‘Captive Elephant Lifetime Care Centres’ to take care of animals abandoned, confiscated, or captured.

Guardians, whether individuals or agencies, should also be given a ‘guardianship certificate’ or ‘passports’ with photographs and complete details of the elephants, which will be micro- chipped “in order to ensure that the elephants enter into a central and state system of monitoring.” If implemented, these and other legal interventions such as the ban on new acquisitions of wild-caught elephants for commercial use, their sale, and ownership could indeed serve to realize the eventual goal of the Task Force, i.e, the phasing out of captive elephants in commercial us.

The proposal has, not surprisingly, met with opposition from owners and temple authorities. October 4, the ‘National Elephant Day’ was observed as a ‘black day’ in Thrissur: the Guruvayur temple here has one of the largest collection of elephants at around 70. The Kerala State Elephant Owners’ Federation and the Kerala State Pooram-Perunnal Festival Coordination Committee said the Task Force had failed to consider “the state’s cultural and religious traditions” and that the Thrissur Pooram that draws in thousands of tourists, will be unimaginable without the caparisoned procession.

And if owners were allowed only a guardianship of their elephants, they argued, the government must take up the responsibility of maintaining elephants. An elephant costs an annual Rs. 3 lakh to maintain and Rs 1.5 lakh to cremate, owners pointed out. The Kerala Forest Department chose not to “antagonise large communities” by enforcing legislation such as this. The department endorsed a “transparent way” of selling, gifting and donating elephants. It also admitted that it cannot take up the ownership of the 800 elephants in the State, the department added.

In another incident a couple of months earlier, in August, the Tamil Nadu forest department kicked up dust when it asked temple authorities to stop using elephants to “bless” Hindu pilgrims. The animals had begun to contract tuberculosis (and possibly even transmit it) from the 500 devotees that touched their trunks everyday. Four elephants had recently died of the disease. Hindu groups however said the ban went “against religious sentiment”.

Scientific studies do establish the practice as a health hazard for elephants and humans. According to a study sponsored by the Bangalore-based non-government organization Asian Nature and Conservation Foundation, one in four temple elephants in the southern states has tuberculosis, a ‘zoonotic’ disease that can be transmitted between humans and animals. The prevalence of the disease was as high as 24 per cent among other privately owned elephants (such as circus elephants and those used for collecting alms), while elephants with the forest department fared much better, with a much smaller 11 per cent testing positive for the bacteria.

Be this as it may, at least two key problems are bound to arise if the Task Force’s recommendations became a reality. One, what would happen to the 5,000 mahouts and kavadis, the primary caretakers of the captive elephant, who would be inevitably “phased out” too? And two, how will the State Forest Departments, with the meager money, space, and personnel at their disposal take on the ownership of hundreds of these beasts that are now in private custody, or bring under their wing every rogue elephant captured in a human-animal conflict situation?

The report does not suggest a long-term vision for mahouts or alternative livelihood options. It does however acknowledge the mahout as the custodian of traditional knowledge about elephant behavior, as the single most important point of con- tact with the elephant, as someone who is paid a pittance by the elephant owner and as deserving “better employee status” with specific laws to their aid. The Task Force recommends that mahouts in forest camps be recruited at the cadre of forest guards and entitled to hardship allowance, accident insurance, and “bonus for well-kept and healthy elephants.” As for mahouts in private employment, their salaries should be at par with the forest department grades, it adds.

As the privately owned elephants are phased out, an already stretched Forest Department will find its responsibilities bloat. As owners of all the State’s captive elephants and the caretakers of the pachyderms captured or seized, the department is likely to find itself in a logistical conundrum, one that the Task Force offers few solutions to. The Task Force does point to the abysmal lack of wildlife vets and paltry infrastructure that leaves elephants largely devoid of professional care. For instance, Karnataka’s Forest Department, which has some 120 elephants in its camps, has no more than three wildlife vets at its disposal. Many of these elephants are captured “rogue” elephants with pellet wounds that need specialized help, the forest department often laments. The report recommends that “Wildlife Veterinary Wings be set up within the state forest department with full promotional opportunities, incentives, and facilities for the veterinarians with options of permanent absorptions.”

It also recommended a host of other interventions besides additions, deletions, and amendments to the WLPA. These include the setting up of Captive Elephant Welfare Committees to assist the State Forest Departments monitor the condition of captive elephants. To begin with, the Task Force suggests a census of the captive elephant-the first ever exercise of its kind if it is carried out. But with livelihoods and businesses at stake and the current capacity of the State Forest Departments, it is anybody’s guess when or how these beasts will be brought under the ambitious umbrella of measures conceived for them.

In 2010, the Ministry for Environment and Forests commissioned a twelve-member task force that examined the plight and future of elephants in India. This motley team of scientists, activists, a veterinar- ian, and a historian came up with a comprehensive analysis of the situation and some radical sugges- tions. In this special section Current Conservation examines the findings of the report and showcases some reviews of this mammoth effort.
Excerpt from the report

Securing the challenge of conserving elephants in the wild and of ensuring humane care in captivity is symbolic of the wider dilemma of living in harmony with nature in India. No animal better symbolises our cultures and few have such major presence across diverse ecosystems as this flagship species. But there is more to securing the future of the elephant than knowledge of its biology.

The ecological and behavioural characteristics of elephants in the wild are the necessary starting point but the challenge of conservation begins within our broader social milieu. As our country’s economic base expands, the challenges for in situ conservation in general and of large vertebrates in particular will be more, not less intense. But the challenge is both societal and scientific.

An India with elephants living securely in the wild, and in humane conditions if in captivity, is still within reach. Such a goal, if attained, not in full measure but very substantially, can have wider resonances. It is also of importance beyond our borders. Possibly as many as six of every ten wild Asian elephants live in India. As for its future, there are grounds for both hope and concern. The most recent estimate of the wild population of elephants in India is over 26000 elephants. While population estimates may be revised as more rigorous techniques are developed, what they do show is that the elephant does not confront crises of the sort the tiger has faced in the recent past. Its visibility and presence across diverse ecosystems is probably greater than that of the magnificent big cat.

India is also to home to 3500 captive elephants, with ancient traditions of captive care. Even as science unlocks secrets of their lives in the wild, new knowledge informs us about their complex social relationships. Forest reservation helps halt agricultural expansion. Protected Areas provide refuges.in India is over 26,000 elephants. While population estimates may be revised as more rigorous techniques are developed, what they do show is that the elephant does not confront crises of the sort the tiger has faced in the recent past. Its visibility and presence across diverse ecosystems is probably greater than that of the magnificent big cat.

Sustained measures have brought the levels of poaching for ivory under control. The respect, tolerance, and fellow feeling accorded to these huge animals by most people have helped their survival. But there is no need for complacence. Poaching of male elephants for tusks has declined but there are well researched populations showing that the after-effects are all too real, with the males being too few and sex ratios heavily skewed towards females. Large developmental and infrastructural projects, when not planned or located with adequate care, are fragmenting habitat, while other local pressures degrade them. Elephants cannot survive simply through strict protection of a few parks and sanctuaries. A sole focus exclusively on Protected Areas, vital as they are, is inadequate for the long-term conservation of this keystone species. Habitats outside reserves may often be crucial, especially if they are corridors or links between large tracts of habitat. Yet, we cannot overlook how economic, social, and cultural demands will take priority outside the boundaries of parks and sanctuaries. Any interventions in such areas have to proceed on a different set of premises involving local stakeholders. Participation and incentives, planning, and conflict management, not merely exclusion, will be critical. Even more so, securing elephants and their habitats and containing conflict with people has the potential to give conservation in India a new direction. It is no mean task and the odds are immense.
But we can succeed. Indeed we must: failure is too high a price to pay. Success requires that policies be better informed with sound science. Landscapes vital to viable populations of elephants have to remain intact. Careful land use planning can minimize the irretrievable loss of fragmenting of habitat.

Gajah and Prajah
The survival of the elephant depends even more on taking its cause to the people. Gajah (the elephant) and Prajah (the people) have to go together. Losing sight of either dimension will harm both. The elephant is more than a symbol of our cultures. It is an animal that has fascinated the best of our poets, writers, and singers across the ages. Its sociability and intelligence are proverbial.
Elephas maximus is a keystone species in the Asian tropical forests. It can act as an umbrella or flagship for conserving biodiversity. Gajah can help save critical parts of the landmass that will be functional ecosystems’ representative of Asia’s biomes, and also serve as a living library for science, store of genetic wealth, and place where we can continue to learn how nature works.

But elephants and people are often in conflict. Asia’s largest vertebrate, requires living space, food, and water, and the search for these often conflicts with human aspirations and needs. Wild populations can only survive if the landscapes they live in remain intact. This was not as much an issue in the past centuries but demographic growth, the expansion of agriculture, and the growth of industry and infrastructure have fragmented habitats. Human-elephant conflict is also a matter of calling for serious attention and action. Every year, over four hundred people lose their lives to elephants, and these are mostly cultivators or labourers. In turn, more than half of the hundred elephants killed each year are in defense of crops.

The stress, suffering, and loss are all too real. It is tragic, for elephants as well as humans are both victims in the conflict. Both are victims of victims. Crop compensation and ex-gratia, payment for the loss of human life (in a very small way) are important facets of elephant conservation in India. But the issue requires a much more sustained and knowledge-based programs that alleviates distress, but also addresses underlying factors that exacerbate the conflict. The best of our country’s skills in science and humane governance have to be brought to bear on this issue.

A future for Gajah

The future of wild elephants rests centrally on how best India secures their habitats. Population and habitat management have to take account of sound ecological principles. But the tactics can vary. The local texture of the land use, society, and culture vary greatly across India’s elephant habitats. The ecological and social diversity is easy to take note of, but difficult to appreciate in coming up with a response. Elephants in India are distributed across four large regions, each with several sub-populations from small herds in isolated forest patches to several thousand elephants within large interconnected landscapes.
The complex contours of the elephant conservation scenario were recognised by a previous Task Force two decades ago and built into the founding principles of Project Elephant in 1992. Since then, Project Elephant has had significant achievements. The 65,000 sq km in the 32 existing and proposed Elephant Reserves include Protected Areas and forests as well as zones of human use and habitation. From the outset, the objective was to consolidate preservation in the parks and sanctuaries. But since these form less than 30 per cent of the Elephant Reserves, it is land-use planning that has been the major challenge in the rest of the landscapes.
Despite significant achievements, there have been shortcomings. The goals were spelt out but the means to get there were lacking, not merely in a financial sense. Coordinated interventions for land-use planning outside Protected Areas or secure corridors required a far wider range of instruments of intervention. Further, the mitigation of conflict in a transparent manner and science-based planning of reserves needed substantial strengthening.
Finally, Project Elephant’s efforts to improve the welfare, status, and standards of captive elephants and their caregivers even when assisted by active civil society groups needed more focus. Above all, the efforts lacked sharp focus and attention at the highest level of government. The fragmentation and degradation of habitat is a serious issue and cannot be addressed without major overhaul both of administrative machinery and of official policies. Timely action can avert crises, and effective governance make people partners in protection.

A mission renewed

There is, to put it simply, a need for a renewed sense of purpose. India can and should take the lead in protecting Asia’s elephants. In doing so, it needs to take Gajah back to the people.
 

In a unique online campaign, George Monbiot and Guillome Chaperon invited public opinion to compile a list of 100 tasks for world governments to undertake in order to tackle the biodiversity crisis. This list was submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, and is growing even after this event. Current Conservation is a liaison for Biodiversity 100 within India, and these are some responses compiled by us.

What is the campaign about?
Despite pledges by the G20 countries to stem the loss of biodiversity, their achievements have amounted to little. In many cases, what is lacking is the political commitment to act. With your help, the Biodiversity 100 campaign, hosted by the Guardian, is compiling a list of actions for governments to take. Recommended actions must:

1. Make a major contribution to safeguard a particular endangered species or area;
2. Be politically costly to implement or strongly opposed by some interest;
3. Be strongly and widely supported by scientific evidence.

Listed below are excerpts from actions suggested by several students, biologists and scientists in India. To read the complete action with accompanying material, log on to our website: https:// www.currentconservation.org

* Devcharan Jathanna (devcharan@gmail.com)

Reduce local hunting along the Western Ghats

Local hunting is an under-appreciated and underestimated threat to diversity, affecting mostly medium and large-sized mammals. Unlike commercial hunting, the species targeted include a diverse range (e.g. in the Western Ghats, palm civets, mongooses, giant and flying squirrels, Indian porcupine, Indian pangolin, black-naped hare, wild pig, muntjac, Indian chevrotain, etc.). One of the reasons this is unappreciated is, of course, that most of the species are low profile and some are relatively common. Another reason is that local hunting is usually low-intensity, but the fact that it is sustained, wide- spread, and practiced by many or most house-holds in forest or forest-fringe settlements adds up to an enormous offtake. Local hunting has caused some species to be absent from large areas of otherwise prime habitat, with patchy distributions elsewhere, at extremely low densities over large landscapes. This, in turn, also deeply affects the conservation of charismatic large carnivore species, whose densities have been shown to be primarily determined by prey densities. However, reduction of hunting will require a sensitive and nuanced approach, given that it is a culturally acceptable practice in most areas. This should include a drive to sensitise local communities (who often don’t perceive species declines because there is no benchmark to compare) and forest department field staff, supplemented by enforcement drives (anti- poaching activities usually exclude non-charismatic species).

* Nachiket Kelkar (rainmaker.nsk@gmail.com)

Revive environmental flow by restoring natural river flow regimes

This is an action that will require, in some cases, flow maintenance by dams and barrages, and an immediate halt to upcoming link projects, irrigation canals, and dams to sustain dry-season flows and maintain regularity in flood pulses as per natural dynamics. Highly important for endangered species such as Ganges river dolphins, gharials and aquatic birds. Most important for fishes, as these destructive developments will directly affect fisheries and sustenance of millions of dependent human populations.

Dam deconstruction or downscaling, and regularizing water let-off regimes might be politically very sensitive, as well as strongly opposed by technocrats, industrial, and commercial interests, particularly power plants, hydel projects and water works authorities. Overall the dominant belief of the government has been that river interlinking will solve the nation’s water security issues, particularly in semi-arid landscapes.

Scientific evidence flies in the face of these engineering beliefs for modifying river systems. Impacts of Farakka barrage have been well-documented by SANDRP, New Delhi. The Indira Gandhi Canal meant to bring in irrigation to the arid regions  of Rajasthan was found to be a failure in terms of investment costs and actual returns as water never could reach where it was expected to, leading to dry canals and dug-up wastelands along the canals. Dams in the Pune region, lead to severe shortages in Solapur and southern districts. IWMI reported lower flows than minimum for Godavari, Krishna and other peninsular eastflowing rivers. Dams on the Brahmaputra are bound to cause severe destruction and in general be loss- making because of their incapacity against the mighty river (Kalpavriksh). Tributaries of the Ganga, namely Gandak and Chambal are under severe threat from dams and barrages, which have led to potentially isolated populations of gharials, river dolphins, etc. River dolphins might have become extinct in the upper reaches of the Gandak barrage in Nepal, due to isolation. Commercial fisheries in the lower Ganga region have been severely hit by the Farrakka and Damodar valley projects.

* Tarun Nair (tarunnair1982@gmail.com)

Reviving our rivers

1) Secure the National Chambal Sanctuary, and prevent all extractive activities (sand and stone mining, fishing, and water extraction).
2) Decommission existing irrigation projects (in phases), discontinue further construction and reject all proposed water impoundment and extraction projects.
3) Abandon all plans for River-linking.

The Chambal is one of the last remaining rivers in the greater Gangetic Drainage Basin which has retained significant conservation values. The Chambal contains the largest contiguous and most viable breeding populations of the critically endangered gharial and red-crowned roofed turtle. However, this sanctuary suffers from hydrological modifications due to dams and from the diversion of river water for irrigation, and from activities like sand-mining; fishing, and persistent livestock and human presence.

The 7 major, 12 medium and 134 minor irrigation projects operating in the Chambal river basin, have greatly reduced river flow, and erratic water releases, in the past, have inundated several nesting sites. These notwithstanding, 52 irrigation projects are under construction and 376 projects have been planned in the basin. This will only further impoverish the river and adversely impact the aquatic wildlife of the Chambal river.

Plans to link India’s rivers are unreasonable, and must be abandoned. And we must remember that water, as a resource, may be renewable, but rivers as living entities are not.

Which wild species will benefit from your action?
Species: gharial, Gangetic dolphin, narrow-headed giant soft-shelled turtle, Indian red-crowned roofed turtle, three-striped roofed turtle, Indian skimmer, black-bellied tern, Sarus crane.

Upstream and downstream effects of dams are well-known, stemming from inundation, flow manipulation, and fragmentation. Inundation destroys terrestrial ecosystems and also eliminates turbulent reaches, disfavouring lotic biota. It can cause anoxia, greenhouse gas emission, sedimentation, and an upsurge of nutrient release in new reservoirs. Flow manipulation hinders channel development, drains floodplain wetlands, reduces floodplain productivity, decreases dynamism of deltas, and may cause extensive modification of aquatic communities.

Dams obstruct the dispersal and migration of organisms, and these and other effects have been directly linked to loss of populations and entire species of freshwater fish. Dam removal to restore rivers are the way ahead, and should be seriously considered.

Manisha Tomar (manishatomar3@gmail.com)

Conservation of sloth bear

Conservation action recommended for this species are: A habitat improvement program to ensure restoration of degraded parts of the forest and reduction of disturbance through regular surveliance of forest staff. There should be provision of resources for the local community to reduce extraction from the forest, and fodder and fuel wood plots can be developed within the village environs and the common lands of the villages along the park boundary. There needs to be an increase in awareness and education on the significance of the sloth bear in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem and the benefits obtain from conserving this species and its habitat. A long term ecological study covering all season and forest types in KWLS is of high importance and necessity. Regular monitoring of the indirect and direct evidences along few permanent transects in all the forest types in different season would help in understanding the habitat use and population of sloth bear.

* Latha Anantha (rrckerala@gmail.com)

Declare upper stretches of Chalakudy river in the southern Western Ghats a fish sanctuary

Western Ghats is recognized as one of the eight hottest Biodiversity Hotspots in the world. The rivers in this fragile ecosystem are under severe stress due to deforestation of upper catchments, dams and diversion of water to other basins, sand mining, and pollution from agro and industrial chemicals. The fish diversity and habitats in these rivers are the first to be affected. Out of the 339 fish species found in the Western Ghats rivers, 231 are endemic. Chalakudy river with numerous waterfalls, rapids, and different altitudinal ranges and forest types, holds the maximum fish diversity with 104 fish species in a 144 km small river. The river Cauvery originating from the Western Ghats, though eight times the length of Chalakudy river holds just 146 fish species. Five species ‘new to science’ were discovered for the first time from this river. The flow in Chalakudy River is already reduced and fragmented due to six dams including diversion of 35 % water to another river basin. A seventh large dam (Athirappilly Hydro-Electric Project) is proposed in the river, and this is bound to create larger daily flow fluctuations, which will severely affect fish habitats and breeding. The Government of India and the Kerala Government have the powers to take necessary steps to declare the upper reaches of the Chalakudy river a Fish Sanctuary. This will be the first attempt of its kind in to protect the aquatic biodiversity in any river in India. The declaration of a fish sanctuary will also ensure the overall protection of the river system from further degradation and interventions.

Chalakudy river is recognized as one of the highest fish diversity rivers (fish diversity index 1.79 – 3.9) in India. Latest estimates reveal that 12 species are critically endangered and 22 species are vulnerable as per IUCN standards. Detailed studies carried out by CUSAT reveals that two species are restricted to the new dam site.

* M.O. Anand (moanand@ncf-india.org)

Increase conservation focus on unprotected forests in production landscape through incentives for set-asides and payments for ecological services.

Because of the high levels of biodiversity recorded within them, semi-natural and agricultural production landscapes are today viewed as important allies of formal protected areas in the battle against the ongoing biodiversity crisis. These landscapes may be suitable as breeding and foraging grounds for a number of native wild species, while serving as dispersal corridors for several others. The importance of these landscapes is only likely to increase as time progresses, given the highly limited extent of formal protected areas (around 12% of the earth’s surface, largely concentrated on mountain tops and in the higher latitudes) and the ever-increasing resource demands of a growing human population.

Across the tropics, it is not uncommon to find remnant natural habitats such as forest fragments, strips of riparian vegetation, and swampy fallows embedded within production landscapes. Scientific evidence suggests that these very natural remnants are not only the hotspots of biodiversity within production landscapes, but also serve as important source populations, and ‘stepping-stones’ responsible, to a large extent, for high biodiversity observed at the landscape level.

Consequently, these remnants are also important sources of several ecosystem services – important at scales ranging from local to global. For instance, forest fragments in a coffee-growing landscape in Costa Rica have been found to be economically very valuable by supporting populations of pollinating bees that are important for coffee production. In spite of their overall importance, these remnant habitats, most often occurring on community- or privately-owned land, face the constant threat of clearing for agricultural expansion sometimes even the expansion of so-called ‘biodiversity-friendly’ agriculture. There is, therefore, a pressing need for stronger conservation support for natural habitats occurring within production landscapes. Given that change in these landscapes are driven largely by economics, financial incentives for forest set-asides and payments for ecosystem services are likely to be important.

*Damodaran (damodaran@iimb.ernet.in)

Enforcing ‘the destroyer pays’ principle

In the context of the Strategic Plan for 2020 on biodiversity conservation formulated and discussed by COP 10 at Aichi Nagoya, it is important to emphasize a new principle of ‘destroyer pays’. The ‘ destroyer pays’ principle should focus on corporate undertakings that have destroyed biodiversity through irreversible land use and/or have created collateral ecosystem damage through their production activities.

Extractive industries or amenity providing industries have to pay special royalties (in proportion to sales revenues) to local communities that have been affected by biodiversity loss due to their activities. These revenues should be channelized for biodiversity enhancing activities, including regeneration of endemic species in sites that are suitable for the purpose in and around the activity zones. Also no new projects involving irreversible land use should be permitted in natural areas rich in species endemicity.

*Aarthi Sridhar (aarthi77@gmail.com)

Initiating collaborative management of marine resources

The conservation of endangered marine species by a conventional protection approach has led to deepening conflicts and a deterioration of the condition of traditional fisherfolk in many parts of the globe, thanks to unrealistic fishing restrict- ions and harassment by enforcement officials. The process of the conservation of marine resources must involve the fishing community. And this cannot be effected only by the State without the central involvement of the communities in question.

Marine biodiversity conservation needs to adopt a more transparent and inclusive politics for conservation. The rights of millions of traditional fishing communities over coastal common spaces cannot be denied by governments. At all stages of coastal planning, decision-making and implementation of laws, coastal fishing communities must play a key role. Governments across the world follow a more participatory process in the declaration of Marine Protected Areas. At the same time, rampant coastal development needs to be regulated so that development is rational, environmental impacts are minimal, and benefits reach marginal coastal communities and other sections of society. The rapid establishment and expansion of ports, exploration for oil, and other coastal industries can have devastating impacts on livelihoods and biodiversity. Similarly, commercial fishing must be regulated to minimise impacts on artisanal communities and on endangered species.

Governments need to invest in a wide range of educational programmes that address the needs of urban and rural settings. The fishing communities of the world are bearers of tremendous knowledge about their ecosystems and resources. Fisheries education needs to incorporate special courses that highlight the value, role, and knowledge of fisherfolk in coastal and marine management. In summary, we call for a nationwide community-oriented campaign for the conservation of our coasts and oceans, with careful regulation of activities that have detrimental effects on marine biodiversity and livelihoods, and management actions for the conservation of endangered species and habitats.

*Narayan Sharma (narayansharma77@yahoo.co.uk)

Protect the threatened tropical lowland evergreen rainforests of the Bramhaputra Valley

The upper Brahmaputra valley in northeastern India harbours one of the last remaining tropical lowland evergreen rainforests in the world. These forests contain the highly endangered western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock), critically endangered tree species (Vatica lanceaefolia), and globally endangered white-winged wood duck (Cairina scutulata). Recently, seven cat species were recorded from Jeypore-upper Dehing forest, the only site worldwide to support such diversity of sympatric cat species. These forests are important for preserving the regional biodiversity and also for supporting local communities who depend on these forests for their livelihood.

However, these forests are threatened by continuous expansion of the tea estates, human settlements, oil exploration, and other developmental activities. Many of these forests, in fact, exist as isolated patches situated in the sea of human-modified landscape and few of them were completely encroached without a trace of forest. Recently, a plan to build a four-lane highway through the upper Dehing forest was mooted. Had this project come through, it would have threatened the survival of several species besides further fragmenting an already fragmented landscape.

*K.M. Jayahari (jayashari@winrockindia.org)

Linking communities and research in the Western Ghats

There should be initiatives to link communities and conservation oriented research activities, in Western Ghats, where empirical research outputs are used to create conservation awareness and the communities are treated as an ecosystem component with due attention paid to their livelihood and other issues. Community issues pertaining to resource sharing with other ecosystem components should be considered as the problem to be addressed through research at par with other ‘conventional’ conservation issues. Amidst the large body of commendable empirical scientific research in ecology in the southern Western Ghats, remarkable failure in bidirectional linking of these research activities with the human component of the ecosystem – information to people for awareness generation and information from the people for research prioritization can be observed. The gap exists due to the inability to translate the empirical research outputs to ecosystem management programs and identifying the community requirements for designing research projects. This would apply particularly to situations where animals are used in traditional practices (eg. Vayanattu Kulavan Theyyam in North Kerala) and human-wildlife conflict situations, where the lack of awareness and non-involement of local people has aggravated conservation problems.

*Kalpana Das (kkalpana1988@gmail.com)

Incorporation of local people into the management of protected areas

India is a country that holds rich cultural and biological diversity. When we look into the broad spectrum of biodiversity we cannot neglect the human dimension. The solution to many conservation problems is to involve the local peoples in efforts and this can be done in many ways. People can be employed as local guides. They can also contribute as patrol guards to check against poaching or illegal felling of timber. Most importantly, local knowledge of flora and fauna can be used to create management plans incorporating traditional methods and customs of protection.

If you would like to contribute to the Biodiversity 100 Campaign, follow the instructions on the Guardian Biodiversity 100 Campaign website, and submit your recommendations online. Make sure that you send us a copy of your action (editor@currentconservation.org), and we will publish them in the following issues.

For details, log on to: https://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/series/biodiversity-100 https://www.currentconservation.org/ biodiversity100
Biodiversity 100 attracted a lot of comments, many of which applied to India as well as other countries. Of these, the ones presented by the campaign to the Convention on Biological Diversity meet in Nagoya, Japan are summarised below. These were also sent in an open letter to the Environment Minister, Shri Jairam Ramesh.

1. Stop forest destruction to protect the lion-tailed macaque
2. Ban shark “finning” at sea

Excerpts of some of the other actions recommended for countries including India:

• Enforcement measures to reduce trawl related mortality over the years haven’t neither been effectively implemented nor have the demands of the fisher folk involved in the process been sought in bringing out an effective An interdisciplinary approach towards turtle conservation as well as alternate solutions for the fisher folk to compensate their losses is required to effectively control the issue.
• Ban or severely restrict international trawling.
• Ban all whaling. Without exception
• Legislate against ballast water discharge and encourage alternatives.
• Create well-policed wildlife migration corridors in areas at risk from climate disruption and/or human expansion
• Make organic food production compulsory; ban production of environmental toxins; declare the release of toxins into the environment an international crime
• Consume less. Legislate against product disposability and waste encouragement; find ways to promote longevity in products. These should be criminal acts of eco vandalism. Zero waste.
• Create national laws (and subsequent treaties) that radically reduce the size and power of multinational Mega-corps are the primary drivers of unsustainable consumption, eco-social havoc, sabotage of environmental treaties, governmental corruption, widening inequality and endless wars.
• Support sound, scientifically-based habitat restoration programs.
• Global corporate social responsibility treaty agreed between major countries placing a common legal framework on how their companies may conduct operations in global South/ countries with less established or less consistently strong legal institutions, so as to give due accord to human rights, biodiversity, etc.
• Ban the use of all chemical cleaning products.
• Introduce a carbon tax; ideally a single rate global tax, applied at source, but a coalition of the willing would be fine, as long as imports were levied, and the proceeds applied to sustainability/biodiversity measures.
•  Control movement of invasive weeds and pests between bioregions and continents, especially through humans trading and transporting species.
• Encourage companies’ boards to adopt ‘net positive impact’ policies (like that of Rio Tinto) and help governments introduce ‘no net loss/ net positive impact’ requirements into environmental impact assessment and planning regulations. This would mean all developers design new projects (eg mines, energy installations, roads, housing, agriculture) to avoid and minimise harm to biodiversity, undertake restoration work and then (and this is the new bit!) address the residual loss through biodiversity offsets that measurably demonstrate a net positive impact.
• Stop the production of plastic bottles for water and other drinks or tax very high to dissuade people from buying.
• Actively encourage smaller families by making contraceptives available to all. The only real menace to endangered species is the menace of human demands on space and commodities.
• Ban windfarms. The wind turbines are naturally placed in high wind areas, which also attract high numbers of birds.
• Research funds should go into finding natural solutions to protecting food crops rather than into genetic engineering. Surely “organic farming” needs to be developed.
• Pass a law to create international integrated habitat network.
• An immediate cessation of the logging of old-growth forests worldwide, and the creation of old-growth reserves that are permanently spared any sort of felling operations
• Apply ecological impact tax to everything —until every human recognises and is impacted by our inherent myopic rapaciousness then the biosphere is at dire risk.

Ocean-going vessels, which can account for the movement of 7,000-10,000 species at a time, are the single most important pathway for the dispersal of marine organisms. In addition, the intentional introduction of species for aquaculture is becoming an important mode of spread of potentially invasive species. One such species introduced to India is the seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii.

Kappaphycus alvarezii in India
K.alvarezii was first introduced by the Central Salt and Marine Research Institute to Gujarat, in 1993, and later to Mandapam, in 1995, for large-scale commercial culture. K. alvarezii is used to produce the gelling agent, kappa carrageenan, which, in turn, is used in industrial gums, and in products such as soft drinks. The entrepreneurial venture of seaweed cultivation was undertaken by Pepsi Foods Limited (PFL) along with the Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI) as a livelihood option for Self Help Groups (SHG) on an attractive buy-back arrangement. Large -scale culture of the species began in 2001 in the Palk Bay waters of Mandapam (which supports coral reefs and seagrass beds). By this time, the species had been classified as an invasive species and had wreaked havoc in the reefs of the Hawaiian and Caribbean islands. At the Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, the alga is spreading at the rate of about 260 metres per year, and covers 50% of the benthic substrate in many areas. It can grow over, smother, and prevent fresh establishment by both coral larvae, and other benthic invertebrates and its invasive potential and ability to re-grow has aroused the concern of researchers.

Recent studies and our own in situ observations have shown that the species has spread to the marine protected areas within the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve. The alga is growing extensively on the branching coral colonies of Acropora formosa and A. nobilis, smothering the corals beneath. We found that all coral polyps below the algal mat were dead. The alga grows so densely and compactly on the coral colonies that, once well-established, it is impossible to separate the alga from the coral colony without causing severe damage or breaking. If left unchecked, and if no immediate remedial action is taken, the alga could well spread to other parts of the marine protected area and lead to large-scale ecosystem phase shifts and undermine the functionality of coral reefs. Some scientists (including Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, former President of India), have hailed Kappaphycus cultivation as an important alternate livelihood option for communities.The culture of the alga is a lucrative activity and comes with a promising buy-back package, and central and state government support.

The entire issue of K. alvarezii raises questions about the integrity and responsibilities of science, scientists and people in power. While the idea of introducing K. alvarezii to provide a livelihood alternative for resource-dependent communities is certainly well-intended, the scientific information and research to support and justify its introduction is weak and unsubstantiated. The most audacious justification so far provided for the introduction of K. alvarezii was the discovery of a few strands of the species in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, leading to its being declared a native species.

If immediate measures are not undertaken to check the spread of large-scale culture, at least till the species is conclusively proven to be harmless, it could lead to complications in future management. With more people depending on the seaweed for livelihoods, conflicts could evolve if management policies are to be put in place.

Naveen Namboothri is a Post Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. Mail at naveen.namboo@gmail.com
Kartik Shanker is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Illustrator: Kalyani Ganapathy