Mountain Men

The remote and poorly accessible Kedarnath, Badarinath and other ancient shrines located high up in the Garhwal Himalaya are some of Hinduism’s holiest pilgrimage sites. Religious tourism offers some employment opportunities for people living in the region – as porters, horsemen, and workers in the small restaurants and hotels that spring up seasonally to accommodate a large number of pilgrims. The climbers and tourists who visit the region for its spectacular panoramic views of the peaks such as Kamet, Chaukhamba, Bandar Poonch and Nanda Devi have also been a source of income for the local people in the Garhwal and Kumaon regions. Gyan Singh belonged to Ransi, a small village in the Rudraprayag District of Garhwal. He was a shepherd most of his life and had, as a result, an in-depth knowledge of the valleys and wildlife in the region. Although his patch of land and livestock provided him with a source of livelihood, he supplemented his income as a porter based at Gaurikund, the hamlet at the beginning of the Kedarnath trail. During summer, when the trail to the temple was snow-free, the large numbers of devotees visiting the shrine were willing to pay considerable amounts of money to men who carried them or their luggage. Wooden palanquins borne by porters are still a popular mode of transport for pilgrims unable to trek in the tough mountain terrain.

Our association with Gyan Singh started in 1996 when we began our field surveys with the Wildlife Institute of India in Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary. Our project aimed to identify potential areas for conserving biological diversity in the Western Himalaya and the trans-Himalaya. Kedarnath, on account of its wide variety of habitat types, remoteness and large elevational extent was an ideal site for detailed explorations on species diversity patterns which formed the focus of the study. After one of our initial surveys to the area surrounding the Madhyamaheshwar temple, we camped at the inspection bungalow at Akhtauli near Ransi. Although there were a number of porters who were familiar with the temple trails, our search for men who knew the surrounding wildlife sanctuary and who were willing to risk a trek out to the higher valleys in late autumn and unpredictable weather had few takes from villages near the road ahead. Finally, with the help of a forest guard (Ganga Singh) and field assistant Kalyan Singh Bisht (an article about his brother Vikram Singh Bisht by Suresh Kumar, appears in this issue) we were introduced to Gyan Singh and Trilok Singh from Ransi. This team guided us in our surveys through the valleys of Dhauli, Mandani and Kham. Thus began a close association which lasted over five years.

In spite of his taciturn nature and a curious disability (a part of one foot was chewed off during a tussle with a Himalayan black bear which raided his shed, and the other was affected by filariasis), Gyan Singh became the backbone of all field surveys. Stoic and unflappable, his knowledge of trails, campsites, and odeyars (large rock overhangs where one could take shelter or tents could be pitched) was phenomenal as was his adeptness at spotting wildlife, predicting the weather and finding running water when everything around was frozen or dry. However, what truly set him apart from the younger men was his uncanny ability to casually chart out courses where no paths existed and in places where he had never been before.
He also knew most of the shepherds who camped in the region, and this often helped us in establishing better associations with them.

What he did not like was the drudgery and monotony of laying vegetation plots and during the time we spent counting plants, he would make himself useful by looking for indirect evidence of wildlife within the plots or collecting edible ferns. While sampling in the alpine meadows he was particularly prone to abandon work and disappear looking for chaura (Angelica sp.) which is a prized flavouring agent. This shortcoming we were willing to forgive since the dinner he prepared would be sumptuous. At the same time, his long years as a shepherd meant that his knowledge of the vernacular names and local uses of plants was considerable and on several occasions, he was responsible for resolving issues related to species identification. His self-confessed fondness for wild meat (he curbed his appetites during this period) was also instrumental in our sightings of the endangered chir pheasant (Catreus wallichi) as well as in various wildlife sightings ranging from leopards and musk deer to lammergeiers and numerous rare birds. To make up for his own illiteracy and lack of enthusiasm for data collection, he introduced us to two young men from his village – Umed Singh and Birender Singh. These two quick learners, along with Kalyan Singh, helped us establish and maintain over five hundred vegetation and bird plots and numerous quadrats along the considerable sampling gradient which ranged from over 1200 metres in the subtropical zone to alpine meadows and scrub which occurred above 4000 metres.

Since bird diversity was to be sampled during different seasons, this meant marking and maintaining the plots at regular intervals to enable revisits.
While the field surveys involved walking from dawn to dusk on most days and the sampling entailed very hard work in the plots on a similar schedule, the added responsibility of cooking, carrying provisions, shifting and establishing camp frequently meant that on most days there was hardly a break for the men. Additional responsibilities included striking bargains for old sheep with neighbouring shepherds when provisions ran low, returning runaway Bhutia dogs (Tibetan mastiffs accompanying local shepherds) to their rightful owners, building makeshift bridges across torrential streams and rescuing researchers who fell in (we later found that the undisturbed slopes that we were seeking for sampling remained undisturbed for a reason) and nursing others from periodic bouts of high altitude sickness and giardiasis. On the odd occasion when sampling was concluded early or we had an off day at the base camp, cricket was the preferred form of sport and entertainment. The team also included our driver Jagdish who was good at the game and took it upon himself to train the rest. However, all this was contingent on the availability of level ground and often we resorted to idleness which was most enjoyable. While the younger men were quick to pick up the game, Gyan Singh struggled to keep up and found it difficult to bowl even once without falling down at the end of his run-up. However, his ability to keep wickets and his late-blooming batting skills earned him some points and he was christened Ian Healy (after the Queensland cricketer) by Jagdish and some of the children from nearby cattle camps.

For a team of individuals who started work unaccustomed to data collection or long spells away from their families, they showed remarkable commitment and enthusiasm and it was soon clear that they were motivated by much more than the modest salaries they received. In fact, most of these men could get by without regular employment as they owned land and livestock. By the end of the project period, Umed Singh could correctly identify most woody plant species in the study area by both local as well as Latin names, while Birender could visually estimate the girths of trees to the nearest 10 cm or so. As the project neared completion, we explored options to establish a long-term monitoring research programme that would also provide a source of employment to the team, but the costs were prohibitive and as students our options to raise money were limited. Umed Singh went on to work on a similar project with Rashid Raza in Askot Wildlife Sanctuary while Gyan Singh and Birender Singh stayed back in their village at Ransi. Kalyan Singh, who was the youngest member of the team married a girl from a village near Ransi and fulfilled his long-held dream of starting a provision shop in Ghat, his remote and inaccessible village in Chamoli District.

To conclude, we share the same sentiment as the other contributors to this special section. While most of us have been happy to acknowledge the contributions of individuals and certain communities, we feel it is time to develop formal institutional norms for developing long-term partnerships that benefit both researchers and field assistants. In addition to basic commitments such as steady incomes and insurance, it is also important to provide recognition on institutional websites and conservation related publications. Field assistants and informers also play a critical role as vital links between their own communities and researchers, often creating opportunities for furthering mutually beneficial partnerships.

Meera Anna Oommen (along with Rashid H. Raza) worked with the Wildlife Institute of India on a project that aimed to identify potential areas for conservation of biodiversity in the Indian Himalaya. The field surveys for this project were conducted in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir and the Garhwal Himalaya in Uttaranchal. Gyan Singh, Umed Singh, Birender Singh and Kalyan Singh were members of the team in Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary in Uttaranchal where extensive field studies were conducted.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Thukwaa

It is impossible to know where to begin in situations like these; it feels as if I almost knew Ravi Sankaran all my life. It must have been after the mid80s that we met. An incident comes to mind immediately. There was a seminar at Topslip, in the Indira Gandhi National Park. It wasn’t very inspiring. People were waiting for the clock to strike 5; a ride around the park had been promised. I hunted down Ravi to check whether he was coming. “Of course not! I do this for a living, why should I do it when I’m on vacation”? Now, why haven’t the rest of us realised this?

Ravi Sankaran at the Chalisek boat landing

Ravi started work with the Lesser Florican – a bird of open grasslands. This continued almost to the present, with Ravi having to grow a large moustache before going to Rajasthan and Gujarat every year. This research led to major initiatives in conserving this heavily hunted species, involving active partnerships with villagers and Forest Departments. Ravi always insisted on spending a lot of time with local residents explaining sustainable use to them, and this was the first such effort, and possibly the first-time village communities had been made active partners in a bird conservation programme. This was followed by a major study on the Nicobar Megapode and then the edible-nest swiftlet, which is still ongoing. We used to say that he started with the ‘birds people ate’, went on to the ‘birds whose eggs people ate’, people ate’! Then he was involved in an ornithological survey of the Nanda Devi National Park. He did a short stint on the Narcondam Hornbill, where his major recommendation was that goats on the island be eradicated, and which was immediately acted upon by the Department of Environment and Forests of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Due to the rapport, he had developed with the Forest Department, the traditional suspicion of researchers had disappeared by the time the rest of us began working in the Andamans, and it is difficult to think of another area where researchers and the Forest Department work in such close collaboration. Finally, there was the Nagaland initiative, which I am unfortunately not familiar with.

Our Andaman association started formally in December 2000, when we met in Mayabunder. Ravi and I often remembered the New Year’s Eve in 2000 which consisted of eight men going on a boat to Aves Island with an equal number of whisky bottles. This was followed by some fairly intense snorkelling at dawn. On return to the Karen village where we were staying, the mood there seemed much lighter. The Karens had believed that the world was supposed to have ended the previous night and was rather agitated at their padre that this had not happened.

The swiftlet project, easily the best ‘conservation for development’ project of its kind in the country until it fell afoul of well-meaning but ignorant environmentalists, had just started. The logistics of it, however, were a nightmare. If the cave was unattended even for 15 minutes over a weeks’ period, people would rush in, grab nests and run out. The value of each nest made it lucrative for people to watch the guards (in hiding) for long periods of time, just waiting for the break in concentration from the protection squad. It was obvious that the only way it could work was if the people looking after the caves had a long-term economic stake in the birds.

Unfortunately, there was a second school of thought. Put the species on the protected list and all will be taken care of. However, in this case, the nests are being harvested, akin to honey being taken from a hive (in this case, rejected honey would be a more appropriate analogy). As soon as the species is put on the protected list, its products also become protected. End of the conservation program, and it is shocking that even eight years later the Ministry of Environment and Forests is loath to reverse its decision. Meanwhile, the status quo has somehow been maintained, largely because of Ravi’s refusal to give up, and the interest and funding provided by the Forest Department.

The first camp for Ravi’s swiftlet project was on Interview Island. As luck would have it, Dr Alok Saxena, the Chief Wildlife Warden, had asked me to do a status report on the elephants of Interview Island. We found that this ‘uninhabited’ island had a population of about 10 primary school dropouts and 2 Ph.D.s in 2001. For the elephant study, we had built an elaborate network of machans all over Interview Island. Unfortunately, the elephants would only come there at night, and we didn’t have the equipment to photograph them. Like all good plans, this was tossed out of the window, and we took the help of Karen trackers who learned to identify individual elephants during the survey.

Ravi Sankaran, with field assistant, returning from Chalisek

Ravi was a regular visitor at ANET, where I was based for the next few years. His visits were always a mix of very intense science and very intense alcohol consumption. J.C. Daniel, in one of his monthly newsletters as the Secretary of the BNHS, called us the “two mavericks of Indian wildlife biology”, or some such thing. We argued one evening about who was getting complimented and who insulted.

We worked together after the 2004 tsunami when he came to spend a few weeks in Pondicherry to prepare the maps for his tsunami report. We decided that we had to do a project together there. We came up with a project on the preparation of and marketing virgin coconut oil, that was traditionally used by the Nicobaris. In May 2007, we spent a week in the Nicobars working on a prototype. It took another year to get funding, and then I had problems getting a tribal pass. The reason for this is still not clear. On January 15 this year I called Ravi to tell him that I was returning the funds to the Department of Science and Technology since I didn’t see the tribal pass happening. He told me to fight it out. I am now sitting at the ANET dining table in Wandoor, where we have spent many great, and many totally forgettable evenings together, waiting for my flight to the Nicobars tomorrow.

My organisation, FERAL, had organised a seminar on coastal management after the tsunami, in August last year. By this time, Ravi had been induced to come onto our Research Advisory Board, and we had decided that he would handle the tough job of chairing the final discussion. How do you run a seminar where half of them are from the Forest Department and the other half researchers, and still stop the fur flying? As it turned out it was one of the best seminars I have ever attended, with a lot of serious science being spoken and taken note of.

How does one end the eulogy of a friend – one of the most challenging, exasperating, fun, provocative and plainly stark raving mad persons I’ve had the privilege to know? Rewind to the one-minute silence in his homage at the BNHS 125th anniversary conference in Bangalore a few weeks ago. The projection booth operator, on seeing everyone stand up, hit the button for the national anthem. Through most of that minute, we were treated to the antics of the organisers trying to get him to switch it off. Ravi was laughing the hardest, I’m sure.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

The Best Snake Hunters in the World

A Brief History

Sometime in the early 1900s, a German fancy leather trader came to India to look for snake skins. We may never know how he found out about the hunting prowess of the Irulas of Chengalpattu District but he very quickly organised what was to become one of the largest snake slaughters the world has ever known. Using middlemen, often Muslim livestock hide dealers, our German friend started a trade that eventually snowballed into the killing of over 10 million cobras, rat snakes, pythons and Russell’s vipers per year.

And then it wasn’t just the Irulas – soon tribal hunters all over the country got into the act, but none had the finesse and expertise of the Irulas.

The trade was out of control and probably not sustainable for long. Luckily the combination of local and international outcry killed the bulk of the snakeskin industry with the ban on exports in 1976, but that put about 5000 Irulas out of a job and hard times followed. In 1978, with 12 Irula friends, I registered for a Cooperative Society for Snake Catchers. This was to let the Irulas continue to catch snakes, but only for the venom and then the snakes had to be released.

How they do it

I first met the Irulas in 1969 when I was on a snake collection trip to Madras for Haffkine Institute, then the biggest producer of antivenom serum. The late photojournalist, Harry Miller had written about the snake hunting art of the Irulas in the Indian Express and he introduced me to Arjun, who blew my mind with his casual skill. From that moment on I had found my peer group – I instantly like their reserved, calm attitude and deeply admired their vast store of wild knowledge. Over the next 34 years, I went on innumerable snake hunts and learned much.

One of the first bits of Irula “magic” they taught me was how to recognise the alarm cry of the babblers, mynahs and palm squirrels when they spot a snake. Very useful, especially after the rains make the bushes dense and snakes are hard to see. I learned how to collect “stick honey” from the small bees that harvest flower nectar every April and how to eat live termites without getting my lips and tongue bitten. Next, they tried to teach me how to find snakes by their tracks but decades later, I’m still a rank novice. In a harsh, hot land like India many snakes spend a good part of their lives underground – either hunting, eating and digesting rats or just tiding over the burning daylight hours. The Irulas specialise in finding the rat holes, termite mounds and other places snakes stay in, and that is like real magic.

An average snake hunt

Last July my partner Janaki and I went snake hunting with Kali, a longtime Irula friend. He was catching the “Big Four” venomous snakes: cobra, krait, Russell’s viper and saw-scaled viper for venom extraction. We started with the cobra and headed straight to the boundary of a rice field where mole rat (Bandicoota bengalensis) burrows abounded. Scarcely noticing crab holes and rat holes with rat tracks or fresh diggings, Kali homed in on one with a slight smoothness, a shiny bit of compressed dry earth on the bottom edge.

He peered in, dug a few licks with his short crowbar and showed us a very obvious snake track impressed on the softer earth deeper down. No root system to hamper work, Kali dug a wide access into the hole swiftly and carefully. Careful so not to cut the snake. After digging a while, occasionally peering in, Kali takes a thin, springy, green stick and gently pushes it into the hole about a foot. The stick mysteriously pushes back out an inch. Kali smiles and pushes his elbow to mimic the snake’s coil as it pushes against the stick. Now he knows he can safely dig a foot more without harming the snake. In a few short moments, the cobra is visible; it’s obviously a female because she’s with her 20 or so eggs! She is carefully removed and bagged; the eggs are collected for incubation back at the Irula venom centre.

Over the next few days, our Irula pals took us first to Russell’s viper territory, dense hedgerows of spiny Agave plants and we pulled out two adult and six baby Russell’s (the babies for release in a safe place). Then we went after kraits, the clues this time being a shed skin and a fresh scat. Digging out this elusive snake of the night was more difficult – the large male had found a hole in the root system of a neem tree. But again, no problem for the Irulas; finding the last of the Big Four venomous snakes of India was a snap. We spent the morning peering down into the rough bark of palmyra trees and found several of the tiny but dangerous vipers tightly coiled and well hidden. Again, the Irulas knew where to look: according to the species and the season.

When my son Nikhil and I wrote up the rough data of the 5 day hunt for a scientific note we found that we had slowly and carefully hunted about 3 km per day and caught a total of 55 snakes, including a bunch of rat snakes, water snakes, striped keelbacks and sand boas just to measure and release. We also recorded 158 shed skins of 11 species of snakes and started formulating ideas of how to use shed skins to study status and distribution. After all, it’s quite easy to identify a snake from the shed skin.

But the Irula knowledge goes far beyond the world of serpents. Being big consumers of the tasty field rats that abound in our rice fields, the Irulas have worked out rat finding and capture techniques that puts pussycats to shame. A hunter-gatherer can’t waste precious time and energy digging up a vacant burrow by small signs like tracks, dung, fresh digging and even the presence of rat lice. They are so good at rat catching that the Government of India’s Department of Science and Technology gave the Irula Cooperative a grant of Rs. 10 lakhs to do a pilot project of rodent control by direct capture.

During the 20-month period, the Irulas captured over 400,000 rats, probably saving at least 12 tonnes of grain and other crops, without using a drop of a deadly pesticide. Unfortunately, the project was never taken to its logical conclusion: make rodent control in India a labour intensive operation that would employ lakhs of tribal people. As usual, the big industries (the pesticide producer) run the show and the Government bows to big bucks, never mind how dangerous and ineffective these rodenticides really are.

The Irula Cooperative is one of the most financially successful cooperatives in India, but it would be wonderful to see the Irulas’ other talents being fully utilised for the good of the country and to make a living for them too.

Rodent control, crocodile farming, technical assistance to field biologists are just some of the many things the Irulas are expert at. The Coop’s sister organisation, the Irula Tribal Women’s Welfare Society, has helped Irula women get recognition as herbal and the tree planting experts. They have planted lakhs of trees since they started in 1986 and the future looks a lot brighter for these great people described in recent Government texts as ‘most primitive’ and as having the lowest per capita income in the country.

The Irula literacy rate is dismally low and few of their kids finish more than a couple of years of school. On the other hand, their knowledge of nature far surpasses most college graduates or even professors – now that’s food for thought!

This brief introduction to the field people I admire most in India would not be complete without mentioning the two non-Irulas who act as the catalysts in the success of the Irula Snake Catchers’ Cooperative and the Irula Women’s’ Society: S. Dravidamani and K. Krishnan. 

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Turtle Boys

I first visited the mass nesting beaches of olive ridley turtles in Gahirmatha, Orissa in 1997. We were a large group of international participants in a sea turtle workshop in Bhubaneshwar. We were hosted for two days by Bivash Pandav, a young sea turtle biologist with the Wildlife Institute of India. On Babu Bali or Long Wheeler Island, Bivash had his field camp with a team of dedicated field assistant, boatman and cook. Two years later, I returned as a post-doctoral fellow with the Wildlife Institute of India, to initiate a project on sea turtle genetics, and spent several weeks at the camp. This time, I got to know the team a lot better. There was Madhu, the cook, and majordomo of the camp. The boatman (Subash) and the rest of the team (Kalia, Siria and Sahadev) were proficient ‘turtle fishers’. Bivash wanted to work on mating pairs, and they had devised a triangular net with which they scooped the mating turtles out of the water. In three years, they tagged nearly 1700 mating pairs from the offshore waters of Gahirmatha. They also tagged several thousand turtles on the nesting beach. Without his dedicated band of followers, little would have been possible.

Later that season, I visited Bivash’s camp at the Devi river mouth. There, a young schoolboy named Bichitrananda Biswal (Bichi) was trying to impress upon Bivash his interest in sea turtle conservation. Along with Tuku, Tulu and Bishnu, Bichi kept track of the dead turtles that were getting washed ashore the Devi coast in large numbers and helped Bivash in tagging turtles during an arribada that took place near the Devi river mouth in March 1997. After working at his camp for three seasons, Bichi kept his interest in turtles alive, working for Operation Kachhapa and the Forest Department. Eventually, he would start his own NGO, Sea Turtle Action Programme (STAP). Today, STAP is a part of collective sea turtle conservation projects in Orissa, and Bichi an active participant. Turtles still continue to die in large numbers along the coast of the Devi river, and Bichi still continues to keep track of them, keeping the issue alive.

Further south, a similar band of turtle followers were initiated into tagging and counting rituals at Rushikulya. This mass nesting beach was only discovered in 1994, during one of Bivash’s surveys of the Orissa coast. Rabindranath Sahu was the fiery leader of this group. After working for Bivash, some of the boys worked briefly for Operation Kachhapa. During the mid-2000s, they assisted Basudev Tripathy with his fieldwork for his PhD and in turn, Basu helped them get a grant to build an interpretation centre and start their group, the Rushikulya Sea Turtle Protection Committee (RSTPC).

One of the major problems in Rushikulya is light pollution from a nearby highway, aquaculture farms and a chemical factory. Each year, when hatchlings emerged after mass nesting (millions at a time), most would be disoriented and end up in the vegetation behind the beach. Rescue missions were organised involving local volunteers, but hundreds of thousands of hatchlings still died, and even those that were rescued were probably weakened, soon to be devoured. While the biologists – Jack Frazier and Bivash amongst others – posed the idea of a barrier, and suggested the use of empty cement bags, one of the members of the group, Damburu, then came up with the idea of using a fence made of fishing nets, behind the mass nesting area. With funding from WWF and other agencies, for years, this barrier served to prevent hatchlings from straying away from the beach and getting killed. Today, members of the RSTPC run the interpretation centre at Rushikulya, participate in state conservation activities, spread awareness in local schools and assist researchers who work on sea turtle biology at the site, in addition to their own ongoing monitoring.

Many of them continue to work on research projects as field assistants. Ganapati helped Divya with her Masters dissertation and continues to work on our projects. Suresh, who is the latest to conduct Doctoral research on ridleys in Orissa, has a dedicated group of field assistants, including Damburu, Shanker, Surendra, Madhu and Kedar. His boatman, Sri Ramalu, has now worked for several years in turtle projects. Despite being hearing and speech impaired, he is gifted with an acute sense of sight and does not miss even a single surfacing turtle in the featureless seascape. His ability to get the boat through the river mouths where the breakers come crashing down, and manoeuvring through rough seas nonstop for six to seven hours are invaluable. Without his enthusiasm, hard work and skills, all the offshore studies would be much the poorer.

For all those who helped with sea turtle projects along the Orissa coast over the years, the projects have been a significant source of income even though the activity is only seasonal. With fish catch declining over the years, many other local fishermen now eagerly look forward to working in turtle projects. Some of them even want to work without pay in order to gain experience so as to get included in the future.

From retired residents on the coast of North Carolina, to indigenous communities in the Torres Strait, sea turtles have attracted an incredible variety of dedicated conservationists and volunteers across the world. In India, students, fishing communities and animal activists have all become involved in sea turtle conservation across the coast, some for more than twenty years. The groups in Orissa had a different origin, working as field assistants in sea turtle research projects. They have helped with three Doctoral (Bivash, Basu, Suresh), several Masters dissertations (Karthik Ram, Basu, Divya, Murali) and several research and conservation projects.

Together, the projects have involved the monitoring of nesting beaches, offshore distributions, arribada census, hatching success, tagging, genetics, and satellite telemetry, covering a fair range of research that is carried out on sea turtles. And now, these field assistants turned conservationists have a significant role to play in the conservation of these animals and their coastal and marine habitats, not just in Orissa, but across India.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Introduction

About eight years ago, a special issue in a magazine in India recounted the contributions of one of its premier wildlife research institutions. While singing paeans about its faculty, researchers and students, it had one glaring omission – no mention of the legions of loyal field staff who had made this research possible, through years and years of dedicated service to not undemanding jobs. This unfortunately reflects how the ruling class views this community, perhaps not individually, but certainly institutionally. Many researchers do have fine and lasting relationships with their field assistants, but most are employed as daily wage labour, whose services can be terminated at any time. Not nearly enough credit has been given to them for their willingness to work in trying conditions, their local knowledge, humour, and as often as not, their fraternal or paternal relationship with the researchers.

Few wildlife or ecology studies could have been carried out without these dedicated field assistants. In many parts of India, these are traditional forest dwellers whose knowledge of the land, of the forests, habitats, flora and fauna become invaluable to the research. As a colleague commented a decade and a half ago “I have a GPS unit; his name is Shivaji”. In other cases, they were locals whose skill and aptitude for field research may have provided an opportunity, but what clinched the deal was a tolerance of rough weather, rogue elephants, ticks, leeches, and other joys of field work. This issue is dedicated to the field assistants who have worked in numerous field projects with little or no public acknowledgement of their contribution.

No doubt the task of documenting and acknowledging these contributions deserves greater detail and deeper exploration than is offered here. However, over the eight years since we first mooted the idea and received a widespread and enthusiastic response from wildlife biologists across the country, the difficulty of transforming oral histories into scholarly essays has proved too great a collective hurdle. We, therefore, serve this up as an appetizer and hope that more detailed contributions will follow in due course.

We begin the issue with a tribute to a man who appreciated this perhaps more than anyone else. Every field site that he worked at, he established an astonishing rapport with his assistants, their families and the community. Inevitably, he became a part of them. That itself was the biggest tribute of all to their role in this arena of wildlife biology and conservation.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Ravi Sankaran’s Circle

The Andaman Islands by Shirish Manchi

I first met Dr. Sankaran in 2003 when I joined the edible-nest swiftlet conservation programme in the Andamans. This unique programme aims to combine protection of a threatened bird (Collocalia fuciphaga) with sustainable exploitation of its nest. Dr. Sankaran, with the support of the Forest Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, had gradually persuaded people who earlier poached the nests (which are made of bird saliva and have great commercial value) to become protectors and harvest the nests after the breeding season thereby ensuring successful breeding of the birds. Intensive ecological studies were also conducted alongside, which are a part of my doctoral dissertation.

Whenever Dr. Ravi Sankaran and Shirish discussed the swiftlet program, the third person who was always in the picture was Saw Alexander. He started working with Ravi in 1997, during the survey of the edible-nest swiftlets in the Andaman Islands. When I joined them in 2003, I could tell from the way they met, that they were not just colleagues but also very good friends. Ravi used to say that Alex is an ustad in the sea and in the forest, and Alex used to say that Boss is an ustad in whatever he does. Alex would often talk about Ravi’s swimming skills and admit that he couldn’t be beaten in diving and spearing fish. Alex felt that Dr. Ravi Sankaran was a person who was keen to learn anything from anybody and also that he was the fastest learner, whether it was dingy riding, throwing fishnet, chopping wood or making huts. Alex confided that it was Ravi who led him away from illegal poaching and forest cutting. Ravi felt Alex was the person who saved him with his experience and sense of humour during the first swiftlet survey in 1997. After joining the swiftlet program in 2003, within a short time it was clear that it was a combination of Dr. Sankaran and his local relatives that really made edible-nest swiftlet conservation successful. Now, even after the demise of Ravi Sankaran, Alex is the person who first encouraged Shirish saying, “I am there and we will take this program ahead as Boss wanted.”

The Thar Desert by Madhuri Ramesh

I first met Dr. Sankaran in a workshop in 1998 when I was pursuing my Bachelor’s degree. He was an esteemed sounding board for many years and in 2007 agreed to guide me through a PhD on the Indian spiny-tailed lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii) in the Thar Desert, on a collaborative project with GNAPE (Group for Nature Preservation and Education). It began with an extensive survey of western Rajasthan to determine the status and distribution of this poorly studied lizard since it was believed to be heavily exploited for meat and oil – the well-known ‘sanda ka tel’. This was to lead to a behavioural study of this unusually herbivorous lizard. Dr. Sankaran had worked in the Thar Desert in the 1990s when he was assessing the role of the grazing exclosures of the Desert National Park. During that period, true to form and despite the immutable social structure of western Rajasthan in those days, he had made friends who spanned the spectrum including several dharam bhais scattered across the landscape.

One of them, Mohammed Fakira, often cropped up in his recollections. Dr. Sankaran, his brother Hari, and Fakira together went by camel from Sam to the famous Pushkar mela and back. A long, tiring journey by any standards, the entire trip took them 3-4 weeks and they lived like untwallahs do – travelling along grazing grounds, watering at the nadis, eating rotla and sleeping in the open. Like a proper herdsman, Dr. Sankaran would say with a pleased expression ‘We brought the camels back in exactly the same condition that they were in when we left’ and gesture to show you that the hump of the camel was ‘Just so’ all through. At the end of The Thar Desert by Madhuri Ramesh that arduous journey, Fakira made him a dharam bhai. And fifteen years later, when I accompanied Dr. Sankaran to Sam, he was far from forgotten. He in turn effortlessly slipped back into their social fabric – from the variations in formal greetings to the usual preoccupations with rains, livestock and errant sons.

When he was in a reflective mood, he’d often repeat something Fakira had told him on one leg of the journey, when they had been desperately trying to find fodder for their camels and someone demanded an exorbitant amount for it: “This world is made up of two kinds of people lenewalle and denewalle” and he’d end with a snort of laughter.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Mathe Budda

As a daily wage labourer with the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), Mathe Budda came to the island of Great Nicobar over three decades ago. Hailing from a village in Ranchi, he was one of the many young people from the northern state of Bihar who were employed by this organisation whose main task was to build roads in inhospitable terrain and new frontiers that were being opened up. The road which was constructed between Kopen Heat on the west coast and Campbell Bay, the main settlement on the east coast came to be known as the East-West Road. After the completion of the road, the GREF moved on, but Mathe stayed back as did a few of his compatriots in different parts of the island. Not much is known about him except that he eventually settled down in the picturesque little coastal hamlet of Kopen Heat. Since the road had ceased to be motorable due to landslides (and was non-existent in many places), he had little contact with anyone other than the members of a small Nicobari family settled nearby, labourers from the forest department who visited infrequently, and fishermen who pitched camp on the odd occasion. Despite his old age and partial blindness, he tended a little coconut grove which provided him with the raw material to brew considerable amounts of toddy which he bartered for provisions. To the occasional researcher who visited his little hamlet, the budda (old man) played the perfect host, preparing meals, showing off his toddy tapping skills (though old, blind and bowlegged he was very agile and could climb coconut trees very well) and recounting encounters of previous visitors. The fact that he recollected and recounted in vivid detail, the visits (and often embarrassing accounts) of the dozen or so research personnel who visited him in as many years, was a source of amusement to all who happened to partake of his hospitality. He was particularly keen to recount the story of a well respected and very senior lady researcher who arrived at Kopen Heat to research indigenous seafaring craft only to fall off one of the hodis (country boats) into the sea and her subsequent rescue.

Kopen Heat though sheltered from the sea (lagoon was well known for the stillness of its water and the beautiful view of corals), was destroyed by the tsunami which followed the earthquake off Sumatra in 2004. Most of the settlements on the west coast of Great Nicobar (and its few hundred inhabitants) were wiped out and there were only a few survivors. Unfortunately, Mathe Budda was not among the handful of people who survived, but memories of his warmth and hospitality remain with those of us whose lives he touched.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Surviving the Tsunami

Although a part of the Republic of India, the Nicobar Islands are closer to the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The River Galathea drains into the sea in a large cove called South Bay on the southern tip of the Great Nicobar Island. The beach at the river mouth was a significant nesting site for leatherback sea turtles and this was where the Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ Environmental Team (ANET) ran a research project since the year 2000. Since the research camp lay 41 km along the main trunk road that led south out of the shantytown of Campbell Bay, it was called Point 41.

In December 2004, the leatherback nesting season was at its peak and a quiet, shy, young wildlife biologist from Orissa, Dr Ambika Tripathy, was studying them. This was his first visit to the Nicobars, a long-awaited opportunity. His assistant was Saw Agu, a young Karen (a tribe originally from Burma settled in the Andaman Islands by the British in 1925), with several years of experience on the sea turtle project. The camp also included visitors from Pune – four middle-aged amateur ornithologists, and two guards from the Andaman and Nicobar Forest Department – Sameer and Abdul Aziz.

After dinner on Christmas day, Ambika and Agu left the camp to walk the long stretch of beach, recording data on nesting turtles, returning exhausted just before sunrise. They were deep in slumber when a tremendous shaking jolted them awake.

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands lie on a fault line and earthquakes are common. But this was a big one! Sprinting to the beach, they found their guests and the forest guards watching the sea receding into an abnormally low tide. Just as quickly, the tide rushed into camp, scattering their things on the flooded beach. Meanwhile, it continued to quake and it was difficult for any of them to stand upright. The sea ebbed again leaving fish flopping on the shore. Sensing that the worst was yet to come, Agu pointed to the hills and shouted ‘Bhago!’ (run). Instead of heeding his warning, the four naturalists from Pune began to photograph the scene, while the two guards rushed around collecting their dispersed belongings, including precious certificates of achievement. Only Ambika took Agu seriously but compelled to play the host, he waited for the older men, wasting valuable time.

The tremors continued and the sea ebbed and surged in small bursts. When the waves started to engulf the land they stood on, the group finally decided to move. As they approached the road, the nearest high ground, the sea was surging ashore with greater intensity and they witnessed the forest check-post being washed away.

However, by the time they reached the road, it had gone underwater too. There was water as far as the eye could see. The only thing that stood above the water was the bridge that spanned the River Galathea. But when they got to the bridge, it was already under thigh-deep water that was rising rapidly. Running to the hills in the distance was not an option anymore, as they would never make it in time. The only thing they could do was to climb a large pipul (Ficus religiosa) tree nearby. Agu and the guards assisted the naturalists in getting above the reach of the waves, before climbing up to “safety” themselves.

Sitting nervously on the tree, Agu recalls the sound of the tsunami as it approached. It began with an enormous roar, accompanied by the sound of branches snapping and trees falling. That’s when Agu saw the huge phalanx of dark water, perhaps 15 m high, effortlessly crashing down giant coastal trees in its path and coming straight at them with the force of a celestial sledgehammer. That was the last time Agu saw his companions. The tsunami smashed the pipul tree like a matchstick and sucked Agu underwater, knocking his breath out and tangling his legs amongst tree branches. As he gasped for air and struggled to free himself, he snorted and swallowed mouthfuls of the dark, smelly water. When he managed to surface, he found himself bobbing amidst huge uprooted trees. The land was far in the distance. Before he could gain his bearings the next wave pulled him underwater again. The force of the tide whipped away his shorts leaving him totally naked. The waves walloped him against the trunks of huge uprooted trees and other debris and every part of him took a beating. He felt like a rag doll being tossed by a malevolent force which he couldn’t escape. He ached all over and was scratched and scraped everywhere. Each time he went under, he gulped more of the filthy water. When he tried to haul himself up a standing tree, it gave way and fell right on him. His shoulders and chest hurt especially badly, and every breath he drew hurt even more. There seemed no end to the fury of the sea.

Saw Paung and Saw Agu aboard the MV Makara en route Little Andaman Island, to set up a sea turtle monitoring camp in 2006


Agu struggled to stay afloat through the turbulence until he was finally able to climb onto a floating tree. The battering had left him totally drained, but concern for others was uppermost in his mind. He scoured the watery landscape and shouted for the others; there was no response. The waves and the pain had wrung him of all energy. Seeing the camp underwater, it seemed unlikely anyone had survived that destruction. Eventually, the fury abated; it was eerily quiet except for the harsh sound of rough waves crashing on fallen trees, pushing flotsam and Agu towards land. There wasn’t a whimper of life anywhere, not even birds. The bridge across the Galathea had disappeared; only its columns rose above the water. Trees shorn of leaves stood naked against the sky. Agu was disoriented – the coast as he knew it was missing and the rainforest seemed to rise out of the sea – but he realized that the raft of the fallen tree he was sitting on had once been part of a lowland tropical forest next to a large mangrove creek, the Galathea River. He pondered his next move. The forest was too far in the distance – he didn’t think his fractured, bruised and aching body could get him there. There were no fishing boats at sea. He was all alone on that long trashed coastline, with no sign of any help coming his way. He wondered if any of his friends from Chingenh, the nearest Nicobarese village, would remember to look for him, or if indeed any of them had survived.

Helplessness washed over him. He knew he had to get back on land, but how? He told himself that he would wait, rest and recover his strength. After nightfall, it began to rain leaving him cold, tired, hungry and aching, but sleep was not an option. He felt compelled to maintain a vigil for any further developments.

The next day dawned and he was still bobbing in the middle of nowhere surrounded by rafts of logs and debris. The carcass of a turtle floated by and moments later a turtle swam past. These were the first creatures Agu saw in the immediate aftermath. Debris was piled up everywhere. There was no place to hide from the sun’s relentless heat. It made him thirsty and when he could stand it no more, he was driven to drinking the dirty, stinking seawater. He slept fitfully and woke up to the same nightmare.

Hours wore on into days. Helicopters and planes occasionally flew overhead but there was no way of alerting them. He had weakened from lack of water and food. Small sips of seawater were all he had. One moonlit night he saw a saltwater crocodile swim close to his pile of logs, and circle it. He looked around for something to fend it off in case it came close, but mercifully it swam away. He could see other crocodiles circling the debris of the mangrove forest that had once been their home. Sand flies bit him during the day and mosquitoes made the nights miserable. The crocodiles and the insects were the only signs of life. He had no idea what had happened to the people in the surrounding villages or just how massive the devastation was.

Rain brought relief from the heat and he gulped it eagerly, but the cooler temperatures that followed froze him at night. He kept count of the days; a week had already gone by. He lost consciousness frequently from dehydration and exhaustion. On the tenth day he tried swimming to another raft of logs closer to land, but when his aching body protested, he abandoned the effort.

The helicopters stopped flying past and Agu suffered a crisis of hope. Then one day, a water monitor lizard visited him and smelt his feet with its long forked tongue; Agu realized with a start that it was checking if he was carrion. He knew that he if he wanted to live he would have to go ashore, or become lizard food and die there. He was determined to live even if the effort killed him. He had regained his bearings to some degree and remembered that there was a forest trail that led to a village called Shastri Nagar 35 km away. He picked a small branch to support his badly wounded arm and swam over to the next logjam and rested. The pain was excruciating and every movement was time-consuming. He stumbled on the branches and slipped on the smooth trunks but he kept going. The effort knocked him unconscious a lot of times, and it took him several hours to crawl ashore.

The shore was no longer the beautiful beach he remembered. It was unrecognisable – clogged with huge uprooted trees, lianas, broken branches, and slush. Climbing over this debris was going to be difficult, so he decided to make his way through the forest along a hilly slope. He was delighted to find the stream still flowing and drank his fill of fresh water for the first time in thirteen days. When he stepped on an old areca nut he couldn’t resist the temptation to chew on it. There was nothing else around that seemed edible. On seeing a skull, he shivered but realized it was old and had probably been unearthed by the waves. It was less than seven km to Shastri Nagar but it took him three days of hobbling and crawling to get there.

On January 11, 2005, Agu staggered into the village. It had been sixteen days since the tsunami. He couldn’t see a soul around, but household wreckage – tin roofs, mangled furniture, window frames, clothes, and utensils – lay scattered everywhere. He stared, trying to comprehend the devastation; he knew some of the villagers and wondered what had become of them. He put on a pair of green trousers and a white shirt that he found lying on the ground. As he picked his way agonizingly and gingerly through the mess he heard a shout. It was Sriram – it was a strange relief to hear that familiar voice. Sriram was a villager, who had returned with a few others to collect some of their belongings.

Sriram narrated the terrible tale of the devastation that had been caused in just a few hours on that sunlit but fateful day. Sriram took Agu to an old couple who had stayed on after the tsunami. During his years working at the research camp, Agu had seen the couple going about the village and recognised them; they, however, couldn’t identify him – sixteen days of being ravaged by the sun, rain and sea had taken their toll. The old lady fed him his first meal since the tsunami. That was when they heard a helicopter flying low overhead and Sriram ran out to wave it down.

By an extraordinary coincidence, a search party from ANET had received permission just that day to conduct a search for the members of their sea turtle research camp. As they flew in the Indian Navy helicopter surveying the damage below, they saw a few people gathered in an opening waving at them. The team requested to be dropped there and the villagers led them to Agu. There was shock and relief when they saw him sitting under the coconut trees of the desolate village. Before being whisked away to a hospital, Agu told the search party that he had not seen Ambika or the others since the tsunami, but he asked them not to give up hope. However, despite many searches over the following months, none of the other members of the ANET sea turtle research camp was ever found.

Agu was treated for his injuries and dehydration at Dhanvantri, the Naval hospital at Port Blair. He had broken both collarbones, fractured a few ribs and bruised his body very badly. After spending a few months with his family, recuperating at his home in Webi, North Andaman, Agu returned to work at ANET where he works even today.

It is a testament to his strength of will that Agu narrated this story with no sense of drama, but as if it were a tale of a long forgotten hero in a distant land. He is a source of courage to all of us.

On that fateful day, the sand at South Bay sank several metres, destroying the beach and the mangroves. The sea turtle camp lay about 125 km northwest of the epicentre of the 9.1 Richter earthquake of December 26, 2004, and about 150 km from totally devastated Aceh in Sumatra. Today there is a slow accretion of sand on the beach and soon ANET researchers will be able to determine if the leatherbacks will come back to nest here.

Ambika Tripathy’s contribution to sea turtle research in the Andamans and Nicobars will go a long way towards the conservation of sea turtles and enable future researchers to evaluate how the tsunami has affected the leatherback nesting grounds in the Nicobars.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Memories from the Camp of Silence

There are innumerable references of the mountaineering skills and the physical strength of the Sherpas who are the backbone of many expeditions which aim to scale the mighty Himalayan peaks. While the Sherpas are reputedly the strongest of mountain people, there are many others who have endured the harshness of mountain life. Vikram Singh Bisht as the name suggests was no Sherpa, but a soft-spoken and mild-mannered Garhwali. He hailed from a small pastoral village high up in the Himalayas, in a remote corner of Chamoli district in the Indian state of Uttarakhand.

Though I knew Vikram only for a month, my association with him left a lasting impression on me. I first met Vikram in May 1996 when I was on a field trip to the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, as a student at the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). He was then employed as a field assistant with the WII for a research project on musk deer. He had previously worked on several other WII projects in Kedarnath and had earned himself a name as one of the best field workers in this region due to his dedication and hard work. During that trip, I got hooked to the beauty and the adventure associated with the Himalayan mountains. The highlight of that trip was the sighting of a male Himalayan monal, one of the most brightly coloured birds in the world and a denizen of the high alpine slopes. That incident left me with no second thoughts, and I decided to work on the winter habitat use of the Himalayan monal in Kedaranth for my Masters dissertation. Winters in Kedarnath can be harsh, with four months of sub-zero temperatures, frost and snow. For someone like me coming from tropical southern India who had never seen snow before, it was indeed reassuring to know that Vikram was there to assist me in the field.

Above: The innumerable cairns atop the Chandrashila peak Below: The camp of silence, Shokharakh, covered in snow


In the last week of November 1996, with several bundles of warm clothing, I landed in Kedarnath to commence my work on the Monal. My work was mostly concentrated around the Tungnath temple (3400 m), which is an important pilgrimage site along the southern boundary of the Kedarnath WLS. Unlike summer, when this area was frequented by pilgrims and pastoral people, hardly anyone was to be seen in winter. The pilgrimage season was over for the year and the livestock herders had also moved down to warmer areas. Vikram and I set up camp at Shokharakh (3200 m) in a log hut, which sat on a cliff edge. This was surrounded by three other cliffs and the mountain slope which led up to the Chandrashila peak (3680 m), the highest point in this range of the Himalayas. Just behind the hut, flowed a small stream which came down from the peak. Villagers from nearby areas conducted last rites for departed souls of their kin along this stream. ‘Shokharakh’ literally translated to ‘camp of silence’ in the local dialect. The campsite indeed had a spiritual air to it.

Himalayan monals – the brightly coloured birds of these mystical mountains


We set up camp and soon began to crisscross the entire area to study where the monal occurred. We marked several trails and paths to monitor the presence of the monal. Vikram knew the area very well – he knew the elusive musk deer bedding sites, areas the black bears were active in, and what tubers monals dug for. He could also identify trees and other vegetation. Along the trails, Vikram marked the trees with a red paint and where necessary he would tie a red ribbon; these would be the only indication of the trail when the area was completely snowbound. Over the weeks Vikram and I worked closely to run the camp and do the fieldwork, for we were the only two people around. Vikram’s days were often longer than mine since he also attended to the bulk of camp duties. Most of our conversations revolved around his wild encounters, the mountain spirits, his village, his family and kids, but would invariably end with discussions about snowfall in the area. Our initial weeks at Shokharakh were a fight against time since there was heavy snow in the last week of December. Thereafter, regular snowfall occurred until the middle of April and the whole area would be covered with three to four feet of snow.

The last week of December had come and gone, and the weather appeared to be favourable with no signs of heavy snowfall in the near future. Taking advantage of this situation, Vikram and I decided to trek to the Chandrashila peak on the first day of the year 1997. En route to the peak, we stopped at the Tungnath temple and offered prayers. On my persuasion, Vikram had decided to give up his beedies as a New Year resolution. Soon we were atop the peak and the breathtaking panoramic view of the snow-clad peaks to the north left us spellbound. As a token of respect to the mountain, we made a cairn of few small stones there. Delighted at our small achievement, we quickly took pictures of each other and trekked back to camp.

The next few days were routine – we marked more trails and searched for signs of the monal. On the morning of January 4, I found that Vikram had woken up very early and was sitting in the kitchen staring at the fire in the hearth. I noticed a strange uneasy look on his face as if something was worrying him deeply. Upon enquiring what the matter was, he replied in an agitated tone that he would have to go home immediately and do some prayers and offerings as he was getting nightmares in the camp. Though I was surprised by his sudden outburst, I calmed him down and decided to move down to a lower camp, so Vikram could go home for a few days.

Later, on the way to the lower camp, we marked one last trail that was left to be completed. At one point along the trail where pilgrims regularly offered prayers to a set of stones neatly arranged on the ground, Vikram prayed for a long time. He removed the fallen leaves from there and painted the “om” sign on the rocks. He truly seemed worried. Later on the same day, he left for home, while I stayed behind in the lower camp.

A week passed but there was no sign of Vikram returning or the much-awaited snowfall. The next day a boy in his teens, Prem Singh, arrived at camp saying he was Vikram’s brother. He had been sent by his brother saying he was worried that I would be having problems without anyone to assist me with my work. Prem told me that Vikram would be joining us soon after completing his prayers. On the night of January 19, the first snowfall began – overnight the entire area was transformed. I was all excited about the snow but deep down I was worried about Vikram’s absence. Two days later when there was a break in the snowfall, two strangers arrived at the camp late in the evening. The men appeared physically exhausted after having to plough through fresh snow for nearly five km to get to our camp. They had come to take Prem Singh along since Vikram was seriously ill, and wanted to return to their village the same evening though it was dark. Shocked by the news, I too decided to go down to the village and visit the hospital in the nearby town where he was admitted.

Above: Vikram Singh Bisht at Chandrashila peak on the new year day of 1997; Below: The mystical slopes of the alpine meadows overlooking the Shokharakh camp


The next day, I found Vikram in an emaciated state at the government hospital. He had become unbelievably thin and it was hard to recognise him. He had lost his speech, his movement and I learnt that he was unable to recognise anyone. His listless eyes stared straight at the hospital ceiling. I learnt from his mother who was there that he worried a lot about me and had fainted a few days earlier while he was preparing to leave for our camp. I again visited Vikram the next day. While I sat holding his motionless hands, consoling him that he will be fine soon, a tear trickled down the side of his cheek. He had recognised me! With great difficulty, I went back to the campsite. It was very difficult to find someone to assist me since everyone in the village believed that Vikram was attacked by a mountain spirit, but at last, I managed to find another person. Vikram passed away on January 27 at the hospital; the reason remains a mystery.

The following months during fieldwork, I sensed Vikram’s presence around me all the time. The slippery parts of the trail where he would put out his hand to help me, the pile of stones atop the Chandrashila peak, the vantage points atop the cliffs where we would sit together and look for monal, and missed the hot rotis that he would serve. He had become an integral part of my life and it was very hard to accept that he would never return. Many years have passed since I met Vikram, and the paint marks that he left on the trees and rocks have faded away, but I can never forget the enthusiasm for fieldwork and the thoughtfulness and caring nature of this simple mountain man. Even today the view of the mountains, its snow-covered peaks and the distant ringing call of the monal, instantly brings back vivid memories of Vikram Singh Bisht.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Mayavan


Phantom: The Saviour by S.P. Vijayakumar

It was pitch dark and unusually silent except for the distant cricket calls deep in the forest. There were three of us, including Mayavan. Chaitra and I were surveying for frogs in a Myristica swamp located in the lowland region of the southern Western Ghats. It was the first time I was venturing into this habitat in search of these frogs, especially the tiny tree frogs of the genus Philautus. The mission was to inventory the species and record their calls. Surprisingly we did not hear a single call and as I scanned the area for calls, my halogen headlamp showed an alert Mayavan searching the area around us with his own flashlight: not for frogs but for something else, somewhat larger. We had been warned by the forest watchers about the movement of pachyderms in the neighbourhood. But our curiosity couldn’t stop us from venturing into these forests. More than anything, it’s Mayavan’s presence that gave me the confidence to pursue this crazy game of frog hunting in elephant country. As I asked myself why the frogs were silent, I felt something soft on my shoulder! As my headlight turned in the direction Mayavan’s light was pointing, a few seconds passed, and there it was! A single eye glint amidst the thicket not very far from us, and though we couldn’t judge the distance in the dark, it was not far. We all froze for a few seconds, and a disturbing silence followed while we waited for Mayavan’s signal.

Within seconds, we were running through the trail laden with thorny vines… a high jump over a fallen tree…and the final 100 metres rush to our vehicle. Mayavan was the last, and he looked a little crestfallen. I asked him what happened? Scared? He replied in his humorous tone that he had lost one of his slippers. We all burst into laughter. That’s Mayavan – Phantom – a guy who can get you out of the trouble and at the same time ease the moment with his humour.

Over the last two years, every field trip has shown me a new, more interesting aspect of Mayavan. A few field trips for frog catching and call recording made him an expert in locating frogs by their calls. It just took him two days to get a hang of it and find new ways to locate them. At times, he surpasses me in the number of individuals he locates by calls. Slowly he has ventured into the world of specimen processing. I feel guilty sometimes when my late night work keeps him sleepless. But, his enthusiasm and patience gives me the much-needed energy in the field to push my own limits. With Phantom around, my life in the field becomes more than just routine data collection. With his humour, his enthusiasm to understand and learn, his patience, his rich experience, and those sharp watchful senses, it is no wonder that he has remained a “silent partner” on many research sagas like mine.

Man on the Shola Mountain by Kartik Shanker

Driving back from the field in our gypsy, Mayavan was lying in the back and staring through the skylight in the canvas top, and I heard a refrain of ‘yes no yes yes yes no no’. After a while, I became intrigued and asked him what he was doing. He responded that he was estimating the canopy cover on the way back to the field station. Just that day, he had accompanied a researcher and watched him do canopy counts through a scope. As I discovered over a 3 year period, Mayavan had an exceptional ability to pick up our research techniques and adapt them with little or no instruction.

Mayavan first started working with me when I was conducting fieldwork for my doctoral thesis at Upper Bhavani in the Nilgiris. Unlike many other field assistants, he was neither a tribal nor a local. No body of knowledge had been passed down through the generations. Everything he had learned, he had learned on his own, mostly after he dropped out of school after high school. His father was a driver with the Electricity Board, and he had lived with him in the area and started wandering around out of curiosity. When I met him, the only person who knew this region better than Mayavan was Kasi, an old poacher turned field assistant.

Mukurthi is a lovely sanctuary on the western edge of the Upper Nilgiris plateau with rolling grasslands and postcard pretty sholas nestling in the valleys. Few researchers had worked in the area, as many parts of the sanctuary were inaccessible and somehow did not have the glamour of the lower elevation elephant-dominated forests such as Mudumalai and Anamalais, or the evergreen forests of Kalakkad.

My own work there was on small mammals, mainly rodents. We carted over 200 sherman traps from shola to shola, setting them up in 1 hectare and 0.5 hectare grids, and monitoring them each morning. We trapped for over 35000 trap nights, in the sholas, grasslands and a range of plantations in the Upper Nilgiris. Mayavan and I became experts in handling the rodents – sliding our hands into the traps, nestling the rats in our palms and then slipping off the connecting rod that would open the trap, leaving the rat in our hand. Wrougton’s rat, the whitebellied form of the common rat, and our most frequent visitor, is an aggressive customer, and needs to be handled with care. A little slip and you were guaranteed a nasty bite. Mayavan was much fonder of the mice, which he would handle like pets, while he positively hated the shrews, which were the most aggressive and smelly. In fact, he was pretty good at smelling the trap and predicting which species had been caught.

Very quickly, Mayavan understood exactly what the study was about. He fully understood that we were looking at differences in diversity in sholas of different sizes (otherwise known as island biogegraphy), that we were looking at population trends, and whether these were synchronized across sholas. He could be completely trusted to supervise the fieldwork in my absence. This is in spite of the fact that Mayavan himself could not write in English. And though my other assistant(s) would keep records, it was Mayavan who often called the shots when I was away. Mayavan also had a remarkable sense of humour that kept us all in good spirits while we worked through the incessant rain and other hardships. Every researcher who passed through was quickly assigned a nickname, that was sometimes friendly and funny, and sometimes not. trusted to supervise the fieldwork in my absence. This is in spite of the fact that Mayavan himself could not write in English. And though my other assistant(s) would keep records, it was Mayavan who often called the shots when I was away. Mayavan also had a remarkable sense of humour that kept us all in good spirits while we worked through the incessant rain and other hardships. Every researcher who passed through was quickly assigned a nickname, that was sometimes friendly and funny, and sometimes not.

After I left, Mayavan helped a series of researchers with their research and Doctorates in the Upper Nilgiris. He worked with Nixon and Bhupathy of SACON on a herpetolog y project and with Uma on the Nilgiri pipits. Today he works at the Centre for Ecological Sciences with my PhD students. He is a fair expert on herps, particularly frogs. He continues to be the premier field assistant for rodents, and is occassionally called on to assist with trapping studies. More than anything else, it is his quick grasp of field methods, his curiousity for the science and his deep commitment to both the project and the researchers, that make him so valuable.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

The Making of Mowgli

It had been nearly half an hour since we started looking for the nesting bird that we had been waiting to spot all day. We weren’t hopeful, and it was getting dark. But Mangu Singh Shekhawat confidently continued to scan the thick forest on the hill across the nallah. Suddenly he froze. We followed his gaze and, sure enough – there it was! Obscured by a drooping vine, thirty feet up on a rocky ledge, and glaring at us with its penetrating yellow eyes was our bird – the cryptic Brown Fish Owl – sitting in its nest. Mangu gave a triumphant grin that seemed to say, “I told you so!”

When we first arrived in Sariska for our study on birds in March 2003, we had expected to employ a local person from the Gurjar community as our field assistant. Instead, we ended up working with this energetic, mischievous young ‘outsider’ hailing from a far-off village, who earned a living as a nature guide to tourists at Sariska. On our very first day in Sariska, an aggressive rhesus monkey got into our vehicle and grabbed one of our bags. Mangu swung into action, chased the rhesus and deftly prised it out of the surprised monkey’s hands! It was then that we sensed he indeed was a different kind of person.

Mangu’s knowledge of Sariska was intimate; fieldwork was something he looked forward to. Inset: Mangu Singh Shekhawat always wore traditional ear studs and a disarming smile; his good humour brightened up even the most tedious field days


But how did Mangu end up in Sariska? “Back in our village, I helped my father and brother till our small piece of land. Cultivation was failing because of the long drought and I started looking for a job. Then I came across this advertisement in the newspaper calling for trainee nature guides and thought I’d try my luck in Sariska,” Mangu recollects. “I was new and had absolutely no knowledge about the forest or animals. It took me more than a year to gather confidence. Later, with experience, I started to enjoy it.” He smiles shyly and adds, “Now they call me ‘Mowgli’ Mangu.” Today, he’s just about the only trained guide remaining in Sariska. Out of the twenty-two who undertook the training, many have left their jobs. Some continued being nature guides but went away to other parks like Ranthambhore and Keoladeo. The rest took up better-paid jobs at privately owned resorts.

During our early days in Sariska, Mangu showed us around the Reserve, familiarising us with the terrain. His field skills and excellent relations with both the forest staff and the villagers helped us overcome the teething troubles of fieldwork. Every time we crossed a forest chowki, Mangu would inevitably stop and ask about the health of the forest staff there. His very presence was sure to bring an indulgent smile to every staffer’s face! When passing a hamlet there was seldom an occasion when Mangu was not invited for tea or lassi by some villager. His high spirits and good humour never failed to dispel the tedium and monotony of the long days of fieldwork.

Mangu quickly fits into his role while setting up the project. When we were scouting for sites, his knowledge of the place and the people was a great asset. Not only did he suggest ideal locations but also helped us plan out logistics for our study, which was aimed at investigating the effects of forest resource extraction on bird communities. During the course of our study, Mangu rapidly supplemented his existing knowledge of Sariska’s fauna by including more than 100 species of birds to his list, which was previously limited to large mammals as demanded by his job as a tourist guide. His sharp eye was quick to detect and identify birds and soon he also became familiar with their calls. With plants, he was equally adept. Though he already knew the vernacular names of many plants, he also learnt their scientific names with enthusiasm.

‘Mowgli’ Mangu’s observations go beyond plain identification and touch the realms of natural history and ecology, something he has learnt not from books but on his own in the field. Why are the vultures gathering there? – There must be a kill. Why are the partridges alarming? – There should be a mongoose nearby. Is that bird carrying a grub in its bill? – There should be a nest with chicks. And unlike many other paid naturalists who tend to exaggerate events just for extra effect, we found that his portrayal of events, animal behaviour and sightings were true in every detail.

Instead of being intimidated by technology Mangu eagerly mastered it; new instruments fascinated him. He took the initiative to understand the use of gadgets like the rangefinder and GPS and learnt scientific survey techniques such as point counts. This was a great relief; the tasks of data collection could now be shared efficiently and we could concentrate more on observation. By the time we concluded our fieldwork, Mangu had learnt and contributed more to the project than an additional researcher could ever have.

The rapport that Mangu (left) had with both forest staff (centre) and the villagers (right) helped us overcome the initial teething troubles of fieldwork


Mangu carved out a niche for himself as an excellent guide, especially among serious naturalists and birdwatchers. His reputation spread by word of mouth. “Most tourists are not seriously interested in wildlife,” he often complained. “They are impatient and loud and only want to see tigers. I prefer people who genuinely appreciate the wilderness.” After a tedious week with noisy tourists from Delhi and Jaipur, he looked forward to Friday afternoons when he was contracted with the Sariska Palace Resort to take groups of birdwatchers out on a birding walk. Accompanying him into the forest, one could sense his keen enthusiasm for all wildlife – whether a humble dung beetle or a charismatic king vulture.

Apart from guiding hardcore wildlifers, Mangu has also had a chance to assist several documentary filmmakers. “I have learnt a lot from such people,” he admits. “They have helped me develop a better understanding of nature.” He shows his prized possessions handed to him as gifts by visitors impressed with his work – a pair of binoculars, a field guide to birds, several books, pictures, postcards and souvenirs. His fascinating experiences in tiger country with various naturalists over the years could fill a book. “It was a quiet afternoon,” he narrated one such incident. “I was helping a German filmmaker take shots of a langur. The monkey had descended to drink water from a forest stream, when a leopard, who apparently had been eyeing its prey for quite a while, jumped out of the overhanging tree to grab the unwitting animal!” His eyes twinkle at the recollection. “I was so lucky to have witnessed such an awesome sight.” During his long years at Sariska, Mangu has earned the trust of the park officials at all levels. Any information provided by him on wildlife is taken seriously. He is one of the few regular volunteers during the annual wildlife census. Mangu also has the distinction of being the only person outside the forest department to win an award for his contribution to the cause of wildlife conservation. Working as a guide and doubling as a field assistant, Mangu regularly sent money home. “There’s no water for our fields. During the drought the well dried. Now we need to sink a bore-well and that is expensive,” he used to say. “I like this work. It is exciting and I learn a lot. Someday I will have my own Gypsy. I would also like to learn English so that I can explain things better to foreign tourists.” However, Mangu’s plans went awry with the disturbing news that tigers had disappeared from Sariska. Mangu was very concerned and he volunteered with the forest department to search for tiger signs, and collect intelligence about possible poaching.

But soon it was official: the tiger was declared locally extinct in Sariska. “Tourist numbers dropped drastically and I had two kids to bring up,” Mangu lamented. “I considered moving to Bharatpur or Ranthambhore, or even going to Jaipur and work as a tourist guide.” Finding that it was difficult to create a niche for himself from scratch in other wildlife areas, he reluctantly went to Jaipur to seek a living for himself as a regular tourist guide.

It was a struggle having to switch gears from wildlife to conventional tourism. But Mangu being Mangu, he took this new role in his stride. The following year he went to Pondicherry to learn French and since then has served as an exclusive guide for French tourists. However, in recent times with a dip in the arrival of overseas tourists, he faces another crisis. But his heart is still in Sariska. He hopes that someday he can find a job with a long-term research project in Sariska, so that he can get back to exploring the Aravallis. Mangu Singh Shekhawat is an exceptional case. He is educated, resourceful and versatile – he will adapt and survive. But, for most other field assistants, life is tough after projects wind up. They, having spent their prime years doing little else but assisting researchers, suddenly discover that their special skills can no longer earn them a living, and it’s too late in life to learn another trade. Taking a cue from Mangu, field assistants with their uncommon abilities can make excellent naturalists, given some training and support. Their abilities could come in handy if they find employment in tourism or forest departments. We are happy that Mangu Singh managed to overcome a livelihood crisis. But the research community is definitely the loser. Losing such trained and committed people to other professions is also a major loss for conservation in these regions, and we need to think of ways in which to address these issues. Mangu and other talented field assistants are worth a lot more than just a passing mention in the Acknowledgement sections of scientific papers.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Sushil Dorje

Sushil holding blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) horns during the survey of the remote Lingti valley

Sushil Dorje was born in a farmer’s family in the remote, high altitude Himalayan village of Kibber in the Spiti Valley. Sushil started his conservation career as a field assistant in a research project in 1996. Though he had limited education in a village school, and no formal training, a deep curiosity about nature resulted in Sushil’s remarkable growth into one of the most committed conservationists in the region. Today he is the field programme coordinator for the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) and the India Program of the International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) in Himachal Pradesh.

Sushil is a fine naturalist and can identify most rangeland plants (using scientific names!), birds and mammals of the Trans-Himalaya. His vast knowledge about this landscape combined with his enthusiasm makes him a key resource person for research projects here. Sushil has contributed substantially to one completed Doctorate, two ongoing Doctorates, one Masters dissertation and several other short-term research projects. His support has resulted in more than a dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications, with several more in the pipeline.

Working selflessly at frigid heights of 4000 to 5500 m, Sushil contributes much more for wildlife conservation than can be expected from the small income he derives. Sushil’s understanding of conservation problems in the trans-Himalayan as well as his people’s concerns has come in handy while addressing human-wildlife conflict in this region. Households in Spiti face substantial financial losses due to livestock depredation by the snow leopard Uncia uncia and the wolf Canis lupus and the endangered carnivores are persecuted in retaliation. Sushil has helped expand the community-based livestock insurance programme, which was started in his village to address human-snow leopard conflicts, to nine other villages in Spiti and Ladakh. He has also been involved in the setting up of two village wildlife reserves, which is a participatory conservation initiative with potential benefits for both people and wildlife in this region (see www.ncf-india.org for more details). He is also involved in monitoring the performance of these conservation efforts by coordinating camera-trapping studies of the snow leopard and monitoring mountain ungulates and birds.

Sushil is also actively involved in spreading awareness about wildlife conservation within his community. He motivates the youth of Spiti to help Charudutt Mishra (as told to Soumya Prasad) protect wildlife and has helped stop the occasional hunting that used to take place. He is working with several schools to promote conservation education and awareness amongst Spiti’s children. His extensive natural history knowledge makes him a ‘local hero’ for children and youth alike in Spiti.

Inspired by Sushil’s life and work, Pranav Trivedi featured Sushil as the main character in a book for children titled ‘Nono, the snow leopard’ which was published by NCF in 2007. In recognition of his outstanding contribution to reconciling the interests of nature conservation and local rural economies in these high altitude rangelands, Sushil was awarded the Van Tienhoven Foundation (Netherlands) award in 2008 in a ceremony in Ladakh.

This article is from issue

3.1

2009 Mar

Biodiversity implications of land use change around nature reserves

Nature reserves are the cornerstone for preserving biodiversity in an increasingly crowded world, but they are not isolated entities. They are embedded within the landscapes around them; species within nature reserves respond to changes in land use and other human activities in surrounding landscapes. Beyond this obvious truism, how can ecology help understand these interactions? More importantly, can understanding these interactions provide insights into management approaches that maintain biodiversity in nature reserves while balancing human needs for food, fibre, domestic animals, and settlements in surrounding areas?

Ecological Interactions between Nature Reserves and Surrounding Landscapes

Nature reserves interact with surrounding landscapes through multiple mechanisms. In almost all reserves, movements of organisms, water, and other ecological processes extend beyond the reserve’s administrative boundaries to the surrounding landscapes. Expansion of agriculture or settlements in these areas outside the reserve reduces the de facto effective area of the reserve. Reduced effective area can lead to trophic cascades, where predators with large home ranges are disproportionately lost and prey populations expand. Reduction in the effective area of nature reserves also constrains the total number of species according to well-known relationships between area and number of species. Furthermore, recolonisation following disturbances such as flood, wildfires, and landslides is constrained with the decline in the effective area of a nature reserve.

In addition to reduction in the effective area, land use change outside nature reserves can alter flows of water and other materials into the reserve. A dam placed upstream of a nature reserve, or movement of fire across the landscape, will alter the flow regime and species composition inside the nature reserve. Regional land use changes also alter climate, for e.g., clearing of forests Costa Rica’s Caribbean lowlands appears to have reduced cloud cover in the tropical montane cloud forests of Costa Rica’s Monte Verde National Park.

As a third mechanism linking nature reserves with their surroundings, habitats outside reserves may be rich in resources and critical to some portion of a species’ life history for breeding, seasonal migrations, or movements between critical habitats. Land use change in these key locations can have disproportionately large consequences for biodiversity in reserves. Nature reserves often do not contain the full suite of required habitats, particularly because reserves are often located in relatively harsh biophysical settings where human land use is less desirable. For e.g., in tropical forests of Borneo, Indonesia, long-distance migrations of bearded pigs have been disrupted by logging of dipterocarp trees whose fruits are prime food sources for the pigs.

A final, and perhaps most important, mechanism linking reserves with their surroundings is exposure to hunting, poaching, exotic species, and disease from human presence. For e.g., lions in Serengeti National Park underwent dramatic population declines from canine distemper that they contracted from domestic dogs living outside.
Reserves are often a magnet for development – both in affluent and less affluent settings, exacerbating the potential for human activities to negatively affect biodiversity in reserves. Counties around Yellowstone National Park are among the fastest growing in the United States with increasing number of affluent rural homes. In Ranomafana National Park in Madagascar, people have aggregated around park boundaries in search of jobs.

Many reserves, particularly in the tropics, have people residing within them. Many others have people living in close proximity. The conservation community has recognised that management of reserves must consider people’s needs and aspiration for resources, particularly because human populations around reserves are often indigenous, tribal, and traditional peoples whose livelihood depends on local resources. The scientific challenge remains to identify those aspects of human activities that are most harmful to the functioning of nature  reserves and the limits for sustainable use.

Wolong Nature Reserve, China

Wolong Nature Reserve in Sichuan, China was designed for the protection of the endangered giant panda and is home to more than 6000 animal and plant species and approximately 5000 local residents. The reserve protects the habitat of approximately 10 percent of the wild giant panda population and has drawn international attention. Local residents are primarily farmers and carry out a range of activities including fuelwood collection, livestock breeding, herbal medicine collection, road construction and ecotourism. Connectivity of giant panda habitat between Wolong and other reserves maintains the population and reduces possible detrimental effects of stochastic processes such as fire, disease, extreme weather events, and bamboo flowering.

Land cover changes outside the reserve sever habitat connectivity for the giant panda. Analyses of satellite images reveal that total habitat declined substantially within the reserve (0.62% per year) and in a 3 km buffer (0.74% per year) between 1965 and 2001. However, the buffer experienced a slight increase in moderately suitable habitat from 1997 onwards, possibly in response to afforestation and shifts to nonagricultural activities with expansion of industrial production in surrounding townships. In this case, land use change locally around the reserve has been detrimental to connectivity of panda habitat between reserves. However, at a broader scale, recent economic opportunities in the surrounding landscape have allowed many local residents to shift to non-agricultural livelihoods and switch their energy consumption from fuelwood to electricity, with an overall positive impact on giant panda habitat.

Yellowstone National Park, USA

Yellowstone National Park in Montana, USA offers another example where land use surrounding the park is critical to the functioning of the park itself. The park is located at a high elevation, on low productivity lands relative to its surroundings. Consequently, species rely on lower elevations outside the park for resources and breeding habitats.
Land use is rapidly expanding in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as the number of rural homes increases. Analysis of the spatial patterns of rural home development reveals that homes are preferentially located in areas important for biodiversity, including riparian habitat, bird hotspots, grizzly habitat, and migration corridors. Existing growth patterns provide minimal protection to biodiversity. Modeling the effects of alternative growth patterns on several measures of biodiversity (for e.g., corridors, elk winter range, bird hotspots) provides a basis for testing scenarios. A growth management policy that includes clustering future growth near towns could protect much of the ‘at risk’ habitat types without limiting plans for overall growth in housing.

Implications for management

The type and degree of interactions between reserves and the surrounding landscape varies depending on the biophysical and socioeconomic setting. Reserves in the lower reaches of a watershed, for instance, are vulnerable to altered flow regimes and land cover changes in the upper watershed. Reserves surrounded by human populations who are reliant on local resources, such as most reserves in Asia, have the primary concern of human activities in and around the reserve. Management possibilities vary accordingly. In the former case, for e.g., the management need is to maintain forest cover to reduce soil erosion and downstream flooding, such as the logging ban imposed by the Chinese government following the devastating 1998 floods in the Yangtze River.

The two examples of Wolong Nature Reserve and Yellowstone National Park illustrate the potential to balance needs for both human land use and biodiversity. In Yellowstone, alternative placement of rural homes could reduce negative impacts on biodiversity while allowing some increase in the number of homes. In Wolong, non-agricultural employment benefits economic well-being of the local population and reduces their reliance on fuelwood and other forest resources. While not all cases are so clear-cut, these examples illustrate possibilities for regional management to address the struggle against declining biodiversity as land use changes rapidly in many parts of the world.


Originally published as:
Hansen, A. and R. DeFries. 2007. Land Use Change around Nature Reserves: Implications for Sustaining Biodiversity. Invited Feature in Ecological Applications 17 (4): 972-973.


Ruth DeFries is Professor at the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology at Columbia University, New York, USA (rd2402@columbia.edu).
Andrew Hansen is Professor and Director, Ecology Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA (hansen@montana.edu).
Jianguo (Jack) Liu is Professor at the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Director of the Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA (jliu@panda.msu.edu).

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Beyond placebo discussions

A colleague once told me that many conservation biologists see the interaction between humanity and biodiversity as sitting in a bus that is going downhill without any breaks. Would it then not be nice if conservation of the world’s biodiversity could go hand in hand with unbridled economic growth, international peace and freedom, and an end to poverty? Of course it would. And neoliberalism promises just that. Yet, in this short opinion piece I wish to argue that following the neoliberal model is going to be a big mistake in the long run.

Let me start with an example. Popular with conservation biologists these days is the concept of ‘payments for environmental services’. Simply put, this neoliberal concept does three things. First, it changes biodiversity’s intrinsic and utility values into exchange values, that is, the value biodiversity would get on a market. Second, it creates a market around biodiversity. As such, roles are assigned to ‘stakeholders’ based on their economic interaction rather than their social or political relations. Third, it chops biodiversity up into little pieces that can be traded on the market. All this sounds straightforward enough; I can hear the reader think. Why, then, won’t it work?

Well, because it is like putting little short-term plasters over a wound, creating dynamics that ultimately will make the wound worse in the longterm. In the ‘straightforward’ model whereby biodiversity is transformed into ‘environmental services’ that can be ‘paid’ for in a market, certain assumptions are made that have proven not to hold, time and again. First, there is a limit to the extent that people can be regarded as Homo economicus. The neoliberal model mistakenly assumes that in principle everything can be traded, that everybody understands how trading works, and that everybody keeps to the rules. The second point is that in the process of turning biodiversity and people into a market, other dynamics such as competition and commercialisation are stimulated. Both these processes have steadily (although not linearly) accelerated over the past centuries and are generally recognised to lead to greater resource extraction, increased use, and the generation of waste. All these processes are part of the problem and thus cannot be the solution. The last—and arguably most dangerous— dynamic stimulated by neoliberal conservation is that it becomes profitable to pollute.

One merely has to think about the commercial possibilities unleashed by, for instance, those benefiting from and marketing mitigation services to deal with pollution, to understand how real this danger is. In sum, the neoliberal ‘solution’ will only increase the environmental problems in the long run. Yet, the basic mistake that is made over and over again is that simple solutions are forwarded for what everybody recognises are immensely complex problems. It is time that conservation biologists—and others—start looking for the real breaks on the bus. And let’s not fool ourselves: this is no easy task. Simple answers are just not available and shouldn’t be expected in a world as complex as ours. Still, there are ways to avoid yet another placebo discussion. We could start by questioning the sacredness of economic growth or the unbridled escalation of advertising and marketing everywhere. Some conservation biologists are already seriously discussing these issues but they are still few and far between. With this kick-off I hope to entice the readers of Current Conservation to chip in and let their opinions be heard on the subject of conservation and neoliberalism, specifically by addressing the issue of economic growth.

This article has been written for Current Conservation.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Belief Systems and Stakeholders in Madagascar’s Swidden Farming

Several local, national, and international institutions and agencies are currently exploring possible methods of changing existing agricultural practices in the eastern regions of Madagascar, but have not studied the socio-cultural consequences of such a change. The proposed agricultural revolution plans to replace local swidden farming with irrigated terraced fields. Each of the stakeholders in Madagascar’s agricultural revolution has its own specific goals. The goals of agricultural development groups are to create new farming techniques and provide crop seed to increase agricultural yield; the goal of conservation groups is to attempt to protect the remaining forests from agricultural use; and the goal of rural merchants and farmers is to make a living from rice agriculture to support themselves and their families.

Tavy (swidden rice farming in Madagascar) is of particular interest to the Malagasy government, scientists, and conservation groups not only because of its adverse effect on the endemic flora and fauna, but because, as practiced with current human population densities, it is both ecologically and economically unsustainable. The transition from tavy to terraced farming is essential so that the Malagasy population has a stable source of food and is able to maintain its environmental and economic integrity. Conservation agencies and institutions seek to protect the remnants of rainforest that remain, and hope to restore the degraded lands that surround protected areas. The practice of swidden agriculture prevents this restoration.

Tavy is not merely a method for farming, however. It is intertwined with religious beliefs expressed through rituals performed during tavy, and is thus also culturally important. For example, before farmers cut vegetation in preparation for tavy, they ritually pray and offer both rice and honey to the zanahary (ancient spirits that live on the land and may harm the farmer). Farmers then pray and offer rice, honey, and rum to andriamanitra (God) so he will protect them from harm before they burn the dried vegetation. The cost of the replacement of tavy with irrigated techniques includes the loss of the religious rituals practiced only during tavy. If farmers stop practicing tavy, they will not practice these and other rituals.

Of all of the institutions and agencies interested in agricultural development in Madagascar, only one recognised that understanding the cultural institution of tavy would be critical to success in the planned agricultural change. Most of the institutions and agencies assumed that change would be welcomed if it provided more benefits than costs, regardless of the implications for cultural beliefs that these changes would bring. The transition from tavy to wet field methods would result in the loss of meanings ascribed to farming. All of the farmers interviewed practiced both tavy and wet field methods. Yet, none of the farmers interviewed practice the rituals associated with tavy with wet field agriculture. All of the farmers interviewed stated that without the practice of tavy they would lose their identity as farmers.

Malagasy farmers may resist cultural change if the non-indigenous knowledge introduced does not mitigate the loss of meaning they ascribe to tavy. This is a classic example of a development project that ignores culture and attempts to fix a problem with money and through technology. One cannot simply replace a practice that has significant meaning to individuals solely with technology. The probability of success of the planned agricultural change would be enhanced if a study of cultural change were incorporated into the larger study of an ecologically and economically viable solution to the issue of swidden agriculture and conservation.

Originally published as:
Hume, D.W. 2006. Swidden Agriculture and Conservation in Eastern Madagascar: Stakeholder Perspectives and Cultural Belief Systems. Conservation and Society 4(2): 287–303.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Indigenous Conservation Ethics among Vezo Semi-Nomadic Fishers

A great many conservationists may be familiar with the Red-tailed Tropicbird; few may know about the Marine Turtle. This article takes the author into the reader into the world of Vezo fishers who live along the southwest coast of Madagascar and engage in conservation projects involving the Red-tailed Tropicbird and the Marine Turtle. The two case studies reveal that there is no one recipe for conservation success. Uneven incentives for including conservation into local economies and social spheres of exchange have led to patchy results in the conservation of these important species on the island of Madagascar.

The Tropicbird has a long association with Vezo residents, who have judged the bird an important part of their social community. An indigenous conservation ethic has been in play involving the preservation of the bird and its nesting places. With ecotourism bringing more monetary incentives to the residents, they continued to protect this bird species.

The Marine Turtle has a far more complicated relationship with these fishers. Being a large animal that is difficult to acquire, in some ways the turtle is like a zebu cow to Vezo Sara people. Malagasy throughout the island acquire cattle for economic, religious, and social purposes. Sacrificing the blood of cattle marks important ceremonies commemorating kin and requesting numerous blessings from ancestors; working cattle till the soil in rice fields and pull ox-carts. The Marine Turtle performs similar functions for seminomadic fishers. People exploit the turtle to exchange it through various spheres of value: for money, for rituals, and for prestige.

Written with a deep understanding of coastal life, of Vezo social thought and practice, and of the challenges facing wildlife species in marine environments, this article should ignite new interest in conservation and society in Madagascar.

Originally published as:
Lilette V. 2006. Mixed Results: Conservation of the Marine Turtle and the Red-Tailed Tropicbird by Vezo Semi- Nomadic Fishers. Conservation and Society 4(2): 262–286.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

The Namibian Exception

Namibia is a country that tends to avoid the headlines. Only twenty years old, having gained independence from then-apartheid South Africa in 1990, and with less than two million people, it is a relatively prosperous and peaceful African nation. Taking its name from the Great Namib Desert, Namibia is the most arid country south of the Sahara. Land use is dominated by cattle and sheep ranching, with diamond mining providing a major source of foreign exchange, as it does in neighbouring Botswana.

Despite its relative global anonymity, Namibia has achieved something truly extraordinary in the realm of conservation, establishing perhaps the most successful track record in Africa. Namibia’s success is based on an iconoclastic approach that runs counter to much of the conventional wisdom about how to conserve wildlife and endangered species.

Despite its rather stark environment, Namibia is home to a rich array of wildlife. The country’s red rock valleys and sand rivers are reminiscent of the American southwest, but Namibia’s are inhabited by black rhinos, desert-dwelling elephants, Hartmann’s mountain zebra, and brown hyenas. What makes Namibia unique in the modern world is that its wildlife populations are generally on the increase, expanding in both size and distribution during the course of the past 30 years. Namibia now has an elephant population of over 15,000 animals, up from about 6,000 in 1990. Black rhinos have more than tripled in Namibia since 1980, from 300 to over 1,100, and Namibia now has about a third of this species’ total wild population. About 20% of the world’s cheetahs are found in Namibia, with nearly all of these cats found on private and communal lands outside state protected areas.

These wildlife population increases are largely a result of the innovative reforms Namibia has undertaken to devolve wildlife management to the local level and enable landholders to capture wildlife’s economic value. In the late 1960’s, Namibia granted private landholders—which at that time meant only the white minority population— legal rights to manage and harvest wild animals on their lands. Subsequently, wildlife numbers on private lands gradually increased, driven by the reality that once ranchers were allowed to utilise wildlife for meat or trophy hunting, they developed economic incentives to invest in wildlife production. The best available estimates suggest that wildlife numbers on privately held ranches in Namibia increased by about 80% from 1970 to 1990, with most of this faunal recovery represented by the more common species of large antelope such as gemsbok, springbok, and greater kudu.

After Namibia gained independence from South Africa, conservationists and policy-makers set about extending this conservation model to the communal lands that comprise over 40% of the country and where most rural Namibians reside. In 1996, Namibia formalised its ‘communal conservancies’ framework through an amendment to national wildlife laws, allowing rural communities to acquire the same rights to manage wildlife that white ranchers had possessed for nearly three decades. Since the first conservancies were certified by the government in 1998, about 50 communities around the country have gained rights to manage and benefit from the wildlife on their land. The latest conservancy progress report issued by the Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations, states that by the end of 2006 over 14% of Namibia’s total land area—over
118,000 sq. km—is now included in communal conservancies, with more than 220,000 people living in these areas. Conservancy formation has enabled local communities to earn income from wildlife in a number of ways, including hunting animals for meat, granting a concession to a safari hunting company, and starting tourism joint ventures with private operators. The returns from these activities now generate about USD 2.6 million annually, with the wealthiest conservancies earning over USD 100,000. Some, like Torra Conservancy, have paid out annual dividends to their members in addition to investing in development projects like schools and health services. While many community conservation programs around the world only allow local communities to capture a portion of the value of natural resources, a critical aspect of the Namibian approach is that communities that have formed conservancies are legally entitled to 100% of the revenues generated by wildlife utilisation therein.

Wildlife’s increasing economic value at the local level has helped to fuel its recovery in these conservancies, as happened earlier on the private ranches. This recovery, in turn, contributes to Namibia’s booming tourism industry, creating positive feedbacks between increasing wildlife populations, national economic growth, and expanding local incomes.

Namibia’s conservation record stands in marked contrast to other countries in the east and southern Africa regions. Kenya, which has not allowed any hunting for 30 years, has lost about half of its wildlife since 1975. Tanzania, which contains a greater abundance and diversity of large mammals than anywhere else on earth, possesses a vast network of large protected areas, but is still losing wildlife both inside and outside of parks and reserves.

Namibia’s approach challenges the conventional notion that when a species is rare it needs to be placed under strict government protection with all utilisation prevented. Namibia’s philosophy is quite the opposite. Conservationists there contend that when something is rare, it becomes valuable by virtue of its scarcity, and the key to recovering endangered species is to allow sustainable levels of use in order to establish economic incentives for producing more of them. Species that have benefited from this approach include the Hartmann’s mountain zebra, found almost entirely in Namibia, and the black rhino. Indeed, while other countries have concentrated on stopping the trade in rhino horn, Namibia has recently re-introduced strictly controlled trophy hunting of black rhinos as a way to increase this rare species’ income-generating potential, thereby producing revenue and potentially giving local landholders more reason to support conservation. While this move has been controversial, it seems likely to reinforce Namibia’s successful rhino conservation practices and result in both more money for conservation and more rhinos.

In his classic work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn describes the importance of anomalies in providing the evolutionary basis for paradigm shifts in scientific knowledge. In the field of wildlife conservation, Namibia is an anomaly, both in terms of its increasing wildlife populations in a world of spreading faunal depletion, and in the decentralised and utilitarian strategies it has used to achieve them.

Beyond its own success, the Namibian anomaly demonstrates how the interests of local communities can be reconciled with global biodiversity concerns in a synergistic way. Whether or not these strategies lead to broader paradigm shifts in the design of conservation strategies in Africa and beyond, only time will tell.

For more information visit: https://www.irdnc.org.na (Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation) http ://www.nnf.org .na/index .php (Namibia Nature Foundation) https://www.met.gov.na (Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism)

Originally published as:
Fred Nelson. January 26, 2008. https:// the-back-forty.net/2008/01/26/thenamibian- exception
 

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

The Effects of Immigration and Farming on Forest-Pastures in Southwest Madagascar

We look at two case studies along the Linta River, which cuts through the ‘spiny forest’ ecoregion in southwest Madagascar. In both cases, we follow the fates of hybrid forest-pastures in the territory of Mahafale pastoralists. We trace the distinct environmental histories of the three forest-pastures— the Fatrambey, the Ankara, and the Samata.
The northern Linta case, at the river’s source, demonstrates deforestation of the Fatrambey forest-pasture arising from immigrant farmers in search of land to grow cash crops for the international maize market. Pastoralists had long held the forestpasture as a pastoralist reserve, as a place to pasture and to shade their cattle from prying eyes. We emphasise that raising cattle in Madagascar does not mean transforming forest into pasture. The two landscape types are not only compatible but preferred by pastoralists who live in the heart of the Mahafale territory.

We predict that the Ankara forest pasture awaits a similar fate as the Fatrambey. The government has continued to make policy that supports farming intensifications in pastoralist landscapes. An interesting collaboration is emerging in which Mahafale pastoralists have turned to NGOs, in particular the World Wildlife Fund, for help. Pastoralists are adapting their indigenous conservation ethic to a Western conservation ethic in hopes of retaining control of their forest-pastures. This development invites further research.

The southern Linta case, at the river’s mouth, reveals how the hands of pastoralists have made the Samata forest-pasture. In the grass-scarce deep south, pastoralists have managed to create more food for their stock by favouring an endemic tree that cattle can eat (samata, Euphorbia stenoclada) and by planting large plantations of non-endemic prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.). These Mahafale pastoralists have found an answer to feeding and watering their zebu cattle by developing a plant that they categorise as ‘water-food’. The inventiveness of pastoralists is emphasised, even though their ventures into cactus husbandry means a cut back in their herd mobility.

The cases demonstrate the difficulty in generalising about pastoralist peoples. Pastoralists might not be as married to grass as many observers have thought. Mahafale cattle raisers put forests on an equal footing with grass. Moreover, contrary to much conventional wisdom about pastoralists’ impacts on Madagascar’s forests, it is the immigrant maize farmers seeking to benefit from the international market, who are having a negative impact on pastoralist forest-pastures. We move away from studies that stress the cultural devotion of pastoralists to their cattle, to a perspective that brings out an indigenous economic practice that considers cattle as a bank.

Originally published as:
Kaufmann J.C. and S. Tsirahamba 2006. Forests and Thorns: Conditions of Change Affecting Mahafale Pastoralists in Southwestern Madagascar. Conservation and Society 4(2): 231–261.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Conserving ecosystems – can maths help efficiency?

It is a surprisingly hard question in conservation biology: what to conserve? Various programmes and projects may focus either on individual species or important habitats. Recently, there is growing interest in trying to conserve ‘systems’ and ‘functions’. We intuitively feel that these are the best, and yet the most abstract solutions. How to protect an ecological function or an ecosystem?

Somewhere at the intersection of all of the above approaches, there lies the management of highly important species. These include keystone species (having a disproportionately large effect on others, compared to their biomass), umbrella species (living in a large habitat providing shelter for many other species if they are protected) and flagship species (characteristic species conservation efforts can be focused around them). If these species have healthy, stable populations, we may expect many others to feel well too (the majority of the community, across a large area). So, the challenge seems to be to find the adequate species for conservation practice.

Currently, many species are already protected, of course, typically because they are rare. But there is a tricky relationship between importance and rarity. Probably most of the rare species are not really important anymore in maintaining the various ecological functions their ecosystems perform. For e.g., flowers are mostly pollinated by abundant pollinators; the contribution of the rarest pollinator species is much less because they are rare. Great exceptions are sharks: most of the shark species are very rare and live at the brink of extinction, still, they seem to be highly important and absolutely non-replaceable. Their major role is to keep the number of their prey low. On the contrary, the extinction of many Red Data Book species would cause probably no ecological catastrophe (major, cascading, community-wide effects). Their conservation is also critical – primarily not for ecological but for moral, ethical reasons: it is our shared responsibility not to kill thousands of species, out of ignorance.

But how to define importance? Many important species are thought to be important because their extinction is supposed to cause many others to die, too. This is mostly because individual species do not live separately in nature but they are interwoven by a complicated web of interactions. Most species have predators, preys, mutualists, facilitators and competitors. So, important species may have a relatively rich interaction network around them. Simple mathematical tools of network analysis seem to help to identify the most important species. Recently, there is a great interest in how to adapt these techniques for better understanding ecological problems, i.e. which methods are mostly helpful in the quest for keystones. For example, there are network analytical techniques to quantify the relative strength of direct and indirect interactions a particular species have on others. An example of indirect interaction is trophic cascade: the big fish may have a positive effect on zooplankton, simply by eating the small fish. If there are more big fish, there will be less small fish and more zooplankton remains. Several types of indirect effects have been described and analysed in great details. Based on network metrics, it is possible to rank species based on the richness of their interaction structure, and to suggest protecting the first ones in the rank. To put it very simply, they are the hubs in food webs.

However, if species are analysed and characterised one by one, even as members of a network, it is not really a community-level approach. Modelling the synchronous extinction of two or three species reveals that their interaction networks can strongly overlap. This means that they play redundant, overlapping roles in the ecosystem, so even if they all are very important, it is not reasonable to focus conservation efforts on all of them. Instead, it can be studied and quantified which group of species plays the most important but least redundant roles in the community. The basic structure of the interaction network will partly determine to what extent particular conservation efforts focusing on individual species can help each other. Efficiency can be limited by community structure and it would be interesting to recognise these ecological constraints.

The authors of the cited paper present these techniques and discuss the perspectives of this approach in conserving real (not model) communities. These are plant-pollinator communities facing the current pollination crisis: as natural habitats are more and more fragmented, the behaviour of several pollinator species have changed. Plants cannot reproduce without their pollinators, and the loss of pollinators in certain areas already has measurable effects on plant populations. In order to better understand and manage the pollination crisis, it is imperative to try to protect this ‘ecosystem function’ (pollination) instead of focusing conservation efforts on certain rare species. As the main aim is to maintain the network of plant-pollinator interactions, the relevant question is — which species are the most important ones in keeping the community together (i.e. the loss of which species would cause the worst effect)? From this system-based view, different species seem to deserve the attention of conservationists. The key message is that we have to pay much more attention to important species, even if they are not necessarily too rare, while we all want to protect the rarest ones, too. Protecting abundant species is not typical, but its significance is increasingly recognised. For example, the role and importance of copepods in subarctic waters is well known, and they attract more and more interest of conservationists. In certain ecosystems, not less than 95% of carbon atoms are transferred by a single copepod species from the bottom to the top of the food web. In short, many top predator
(including whales, tuna and penguins) feed on a single species. According to the words of Edward O. Wilson, these invertebrates are among “the little things that run the world”. Sexy mammals and birds must be accompanied by small invertebrates on our to-do-lists. But by no means replaced.

Originally published as:
Benedek, Z., F. Jordán and A. Báldi. 2007. Topological keystone species complexes in ecological interaction networks. Community Ecology 8:1-8.
 
 

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Madagascar’s Social-Environments

The six articles in this special section try to humanise the problem of the environment in Madagascar. By ‘humanise’ I mean that they consider Malagasy people as much a part of the solution as the problem of Madagascar’s environmental crisis. Rather than point fingers of blame at Malagasy peasants, pastoralists, and peripatetics, and leave it at that, the authors strive to interrogate how nature and culture, resources and economies, discourses and politics intersect and impact each other.

The special section offers readers a wide geographical sampling of social-environmental studies from this large African island, the fourth largest in the world. Kaufmann and Tsirahamba introduce readers to forest-pastures in the southwest’s spiny forest and clarify deforestation pressures from immigrant farmers in one case and forestation practices among pastoralists in another case. Lilette gives readers a comparative study wherein environmental heritage activities have had different successes in marine biodiversity conservation along the southwest coast. Hume excavates the multiple perspectives, at various human scales, toward swidden cultivation practices in eastern rainforests. Sandy provides a social-environmental guide map along varying scales of human impacts on the dry deciduous forest of western Madagascar.

Together, the articles demonstrate the benefits of social-environmental studies that delve into local Malagasy environmental attitudes and their practices on the land, and then weigh how outside pressures affect the empirical social-environmental relationships.

Originally published as:
Kaufmann J.C. 2006. Introduction: The Sad Opaqueness of the Environmental Crisis in Madagascar. Conservation and Society 4(2): 179–193.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

MADAGASCAR: Introduction

The Anthropology of Madagascar’s Environmental Crisis

Can anthropology make a difference in the future of the biodiversity of Madagascar? Common sense suggests that as a holistic discipline, one that studies human diversity from multiple perspectives and methodologies, anthropology disseminates useful empirical knowledge about Madagascar’s struggle with its environmental crisis. But in practice, primatologists might lean toward the zoological side of physical anthropology, losing sight of the search for what it means to be human in the family of primates. Likewise, cultural anthropologists might slide into an extreme form of cultural relativism that diminishes Malagasy malfeasance in their environments This article asks how anthropology might develop methodologies that find a common ground that melds nature and culture.

Chipping away at the nature / culture dichotomy in the social-environmental literature on Madagascar starts by avoiding polarising of the Malagasy rural people as either extrinsic to nature or as intrinsic. Drawing on Michael Herzfeld’s (2001) collaborative work in defining the middle ground in anthropology, I argue that methodologies that include more team fieldwork leading to jointly published research articles offer new opportunities for both primatologists and cultural anthropologists. Anthropologists can have a more positive effect in Madagascar if they disseminate the synergisms between nature and culture in various Malagasy contexts.

References:
Herzfeld, M. 2001 Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Originally published as:
Kaufmann J.C. 2006. Introduction: The Sad Opaqueness of the Environmental Crisis in Madagascar. Conservation and Society 4(2): 179–193.

Jeffrey C. Kaufmann is Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA (jeffrey.kaufmann@usm.edu).

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

What can the Forest Rights Act Decentralise: Protection or Conservation?

The Rules for The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (henceforth RFRA) were finally gazetted in January 2008. The six month wait in gazetting the rules, which first appeared in draft form in June 2007, is only representative of delays that have beleaguered the Act since its introduction as a Bill in 2005. Conflict prevailed between conservationists and tribal rights groups in the form of protests and lobbying. The very process of writing the provisions of the Act, wherein each lobby at different junctures in the nearly 3-year legislative career of the Act included and excluded favourable and unfavourable clauses and whole sections, reflects this conflict. This essay refers to such conflicts, especially the one that possibly prevailed in the changes made to the draft rules. It draws implications these changes could potentially have for how the RFRA achieves what is stated in its preamble, namely, to ‘strengthen the conservation regime of forests’.

Drafting Conflicts

Sunita Narain, in an editorial in Down to Earth (November 2007) describes well the conflicts among lobbies while the bill was being drafted. She writes that after the tiger lobby blocked the bill, an uneasy truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and to maintain their rights. The bill later presented to parliament included a provision of temporary pattas (land deeds) for people who were to be relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This ensured protection of rights even as it allowed for the government to undertake relocation within a time-bound schedule. But the tribal lobby, with an advantage in parliament, raised the stakes, and in late 2006 the Act, finalised by a joint parliamentary committee, dropped this clause. A new term, ‘critical wildlife habitats,’ was inserted instead. These habitats would need to be established as inviolate wildlife zones. Further, the rules for the Act required guidelines regarding the nature, process, validation, and interpretation of data to be collected for designation of such critical wildlife habitats. This virtually questioned ‘the legality of all protected areas’. Conservationists, in turn, reacted and wanted all wildlife areas (over 600 of them) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed from the ambit of the Act.

Later, though it appears that the conservation lobby had prevailed in rewriting the draft rules, an opinion prevails among rights sections that the changes introduced in the final rules (especially the exclusion of Section-24, which provided an institutional roadmap for operationalising duties), were all for good, after all. The reason? Because the section contained clauses that required Gram Sabha plans for conservation and protection to be ‘harmonised’ with working plans. Also these committees were to guide Joint Forest Management ( JFM), thereby potentially lending legitimacy to schemes that usually lacked ‘jointness’. A comparison of the finalised rules with the draft rules will show that the functions of the Gram Sabha have been diluted even as it is required to accommodate conservation interests. And, as mentioned, the institutional process for implementing the ‘Duties’ provision of the RFRA has been excluded.

Draft Rules

So what exactly did the draft rule Section-24 provide for? It provided a possible framework to institutionalise the ‘Duties’ clause of the RFRA. The clause ‘empowered’ right holders and Gram Sabhas to protect biodiversity and ensure the preservation of their habitats against destructive practices that affect their cultural and natural heritage. It required that plans, norms, methods, and procedures be prepared for protection and management of community forest resources, and that these be harmonised with official prescriptions and plans. Norms for protection, regulation and sustainable use were required to be institutionalised. So were norms for community wildlife management. Section 24 has, instead, been collapsed into one function of Gram Sabhas under subsection ‘e’ of Section-6 of the final rules, namely, that Gram Sabhas must ‘constitute Committees for the protection of wildlife, forest, and biodiversity, from amongst its members, in order to carry out the provisions of Section-5 of the Act’.
The other alterations made to Gram Sabha functions render temporary any relief that the rights lobby felt over the exclusion of the institutional roadmap. For instance, subsection ‘a’ of Section-4 of the final rules states that Gram Sabhas will ‘initiate the process of determining the nature and extent of forest rights, receive and hear the claims relating thereto’. The word ‘settle’ that appears in the draft rules has been removed. This implies that the Gram Sabhas cannot settle disputes over rights. Before passing any resolution on rights they need to consider the forest department’s disputes over rights that are sought to be given. If unsatisfied with the Gram Sabha’s resolutions, the forest department can appeal to the sub divisional committee according to subsection ‘g’ of Section-6. The italicised portions of this subsection, which reads ‘hear petitions from persons, including State agencies, aggrieved by the resolutions of the Gram Sabhas’ have been inserted in the final rules. Leave alone the scenario of Gram Sabhas having to harmonise their plans with official ones, it now appears that vesting such rights could itself be difficult as Gram Sabhas have to take cognisance of objections by the forest department (of which there may be plenty, especially in the context of ‘critical wildlife habitats’) even as it would be difficult to resolve such objections.

‘Conservation’ and ‘Protection’

In the interim, between the draft and final rules, many a forest in India and its people may have been engaged with by NGOs and scientists, natural and social, broadly in the legislative spirit of the RFRA but also specifically in the  context of the institutional roadmap suggested in the draft rules. The positive aspect of the draft provision was that by providing an institutional framework for right holders and Gram Sabhas to carry out their duties it ensured that the duties clause was indeed operational. Also, by using the words ‘protection’ and ‘conservation’ separately, the draft rules facilitated an interpretation of duties as entailing conservation (recruiting local knowledge, e.g., observations through an epistemic partnership) and protection (policing/vigilance) functions. The separate usage of ‘conservation’ and ‘protection’ in the Act’s provisions seemed intended. Thus, in phrases such as ‘right to protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage,’ or ‘traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use,’ these two words seem at best to be used as options but not really as substitutes. As legal codes have to be crisply written for unambiguous interpretation, using ‘conserve’ and ‘protect’ in a repetitive sense of meaning the same thing, e.g. policing and vigilance over resources, is counter productive. Also from an external perspective ‘protect’ and ‘conserve’ can plausibly be interpreted to mean ‘policing’, and ‘formal’ or ‘local knowledge’ application, respectively, by way of an appropriate analogy of what a Protected Area means and what happens in terms of management within it.

A forest is protected by wildlife law. An administrative hierarchy consisting of bureaucratic roles that range along a super and subordinate continuum protects a park or a sanctuary using the threat of punitive sanction and physical policing. Within this protected space, ‘conservation’ happens as a scientific endeavour entailing sometimes theoretically esoteric but usually empirically oriented research in biodiversity. Thus, the use of the word ‘conservation’ offered scope for recruiting local communities as epistemic partners under decentralised
circumstances. This is why the provisions in the draft rules gave scope for decentralised ‘conservation,’ and not just for ‘protection’.

Conclusion

The Problem with ‘Protection’ The suggestion that plans and procedures for protection and conservation needed to be harmonised with official working and management plans, may have been resisted by rights groups and sympathetic alliances. The conservation lobby would not have been happy with striking epistemic partnerships with local constituencies either. One could attribute lobbying and counter lobbying by rights and conservation lobbies for the insertion of the word ‘conservation,’ and the need to ‘harmonise’ plans and procedures for the same with official plans, respectively. Similarly, one could attribute to lobbying the removal of the institutional framework in the final rules. But who lobbied for what is not an easy surmise. The conservation lobby would certainly have resisted the roadmap to decentralisation of not just protection but conservation, which the draft rules provided. The rights lobby, likewise, would have been uncomfortable with such an elaborate institutional roadmap for protection and conservation, and especially with the clause to harmonise.

What now remains is only protection through the impermanent and unstable arrangement of ‘committees’—a mode that the government is quite familiar with, and one that has been subject to widespread criticism. And as for ‘protection’, it is not some unique prescription of the RFRA, but a general constitutional guideline. Every Indian citizen has the right to protect the environment. The bestowal of  protection duties would only create a policing proletariat in Indian forests. Decentralised conservation involving epistemic partnerships—using local and customary knowledge, say in the form of observations and practices in conjunction with scientific knowledge— would remain a dormant democratic agenda.

This article has been written for Current Conservation

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Right direction, but long way to go

Conservation and ‘sustainable use’ are fuzzy terms. Nevertheless, together they encompass the two broad goals of forest management: the former about ensuring a wider set of environmental benefits in the present, and the latter about ensuring resource availability for the future. Ironically, neither dimension was explicitly articulated in the Indian Forest Act of 1927, leaving the colonial state free to take over and manage forests for whatever objective it desired. Later, the Wildlife Act of 1972 focused on conservation objectives alone. More recently, the National Forest Policy of 1988 set ‘environmental balance’ and ‘meeting local needs’ as the priorities of forest management, but these concepts were never internalised into the forest laws. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (RFRA), is thus a landmark legislation, because for the first time a forest law explicitly recognises both the objectives of forest management, namely, conservation and sustainable use, right in its preamble itself.

Besides a better definition of ‘goals’, the RFRA also provides a radically new ‘means’ for forest management, namely, community-based management. It does so in steps: first—requiring that the land rights (rights to habitation and cultivation) be recorded and settled, second—that the right to a community forest resource be identified and settled, and third—asking the communities (through their Gram Sabhas) to take up the management of this resource. The first, to which the RFRA pays most attention, is a pre-condition for participation in forest management, because forest dwellers would not be willing to engage in forest management if the land they dwell on or cultivate is itself disputed. All along, it had been assumed that land rights are generally well settled, with the exceptions of conversions that may have taken place after the Forest Conservation Act 1980 was passed. However, as the movement that led to the passing of the RFRA convincingly argued, a large fraction of forest-dwelling communities, especially in the central Indian forest belt, had been declared encroachers in their ancestral lands or in forest villages created by the government itself. Th RFRA and its rules address this problem head-on, by providing a mechanism for members of scheduled tribes and other forest-dwelling communities to stake their individual (or community) claims to lands already under their use for dwelling and cultivation.

Further, going beyond the problem of arbitrarily drawn forest boundaries, the RFRA also asks for a more systematic and transparent procedure for identifying the boundaries of ‘critical wildlife habitat’ within the forest. And the Act provides for assigning community rights over forests that communities wish to manage for sustainable use.

Missing institutional road-map

After boundaries are (re-)drawn, the question of institutionalising the management of both community forest resource and critical wildlife habitat looms large. The institutional arrangements will necessarily be complex and nested, as they need to ensure long term sustainability and the balancing of interests of different beneficiaries of the forests, onsite and off-site. Here, however, the RFRA seems to have fumbled. It does not provide a clear institutional road-map for institutionalising and democratic forest management in the long run.

As Siddarth Krishnan points out in his article in this issue, some fairly technocratic, centralised and muddled norms for functioning were sought to be introduced by the bureaucracy (vide section 24 in the draft rules) — norms that imposed harmonisation with official prescriptions and working plans and a back-door legitimisation of Joint Forest Management and watershed management committees. But in shooting down this attempt, the tribal rights groups may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In their final form, the RFRA rules only require the Gram Sabha to ‘constitute Committees for the protection of wildlife, forest and biodiversity, from amongst its members.’ There is no attempt to clarify the internal structure and functioning of these committees, nor their external relationships with and roles of other legitimate agencies (Forest Departments or otherwise).

Internal powers and democracy

The rules, as they stand today, do not specify the legal status and powers of the committees constituted for forest protection, or the land over which they would have rights. Will the members of the committee set up by the Gram Sabha for protection have statutory powers to stop unsanctioned forest felling? Will the community forest resource recognised under the Act have the legal status of, say, a ‘Village Forest’ under the Indian Forest Act? What happens to other rights and privileges that have been granted earlier, for instance, individual forest privileges granted in the Western Ghats of Karnataka? In the absence of such specification, there is a danger that individual rights holders will also get rights in the community forest resource, aggravating existing inequalities, as has happened in the Joint Forest Management ( JFM) context.

Similarly, the rules do not pay attention to the fact that the so-called ‘forest-dwelling communities’ are often undemocratic in their functioning and are often (if not always) afflicted by hierarchies of caste, class, and gender. This requires rules about election of the committees and some a priori structuring of the decision making to ensure representation of and a voice for the marginalised groups. The JFM programme, for all its faults, at least paid some attention to this issue by specifying processes and composition in some—sometimes too much—detail. It is nobody’s case that specifying this will automatically ensure a democratic process, but it is a first step towards that. Furthermore, learning from the JFM experience, the rules should have incorporated provisions to ensure that the rights holders can generate income from the resource without the elite capturing the surplus.

Redefining mandates

Externally, the RFRA and its rules do not specify how the local forest management committees will interact with or fit within the larger structures of forest governance (and, indeed, how the larger structures need to be redefined in light of the RFRA). The draft rules did specify that the Forest Department must respond to requests for assistance from the Gram Sabha, and the omission of this specification is a weakness of the final rules. But even this specification would have been hardly enough. The mandate and jurisdiction of the Forest Departments need to be redefined. The notion of ‘assistance’ must be clearly defined and its mechanisms clarified. If communities require assistance in forest protection, this should be provided by a specialised forest protection force. On the other hand, ensuring that the hamlet- or village-level committees set up under this Act actually discharge their responsibility of protection and conservation will require a statutory agency that is more democratic, transparent and knowledgeable about sustainable use than the current Forest Departments.

The absence of an institutional roadmap will hamper the management of critical wildlife habitat or other conservation-oriented zones. On one hand, the wildlife wing of the forest department should probably become an independent, differently-trained, wildlife management service, on the other, local communities must also be given a role in the management of critical wildlife habitat.

And finally, the Forest Conservation Act must be amended to ensure that the informed consent of the Gram Sabhas that have been recognised under the RFRA is necessary in any conversion of their forest lands to non-forest uses.

Conclusion: The need to engage

The RFRA faced tremendous opposition from the Ministry of Environment and Forests and therefore its proponents were forced to convert the issue into one of tribal development and bring it up through the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. (Although other forest dwellers were included in the interest of equity, the focus of the RFRA is on tribal communities.) But if the radical restructuring of forest management envisaged by the Act is to become a reality, the lessons of almost two decades of experiments with JFM have to be taken on board, and new multi-layered arrangements and mandates will have to be created. The onus for this is on the foresters and their ministry, who have to shed their resistance and engage with the restructuring, if they truly share the goals of conservation and sustainable use.

This article has been written for Current Conservation.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

The Forest Rights Act: What’s in it for Conservation?

Are conservationists addressing substantial threats to biodiversity or are they perhaps influenced by other issues such as charisma and contingency? On one hand, some conservationists give undue attention to large attractive animals and to obvious immediate threats such as poaching. On the other, they are also constrained by what they, as an interest group, can politically achieve. In developing countries like India—where the focus has been, and continues to be, on economic growth—conservationists tend to be relatively powerless. At a national level, conservationists are low on the agenda of both politicians and bureaucrats, who do not believe that environmental conservation helps growth. Thus many conservationist battles are fought against the absolutely powerless and marginalised. Instead of gaining popular support from these constituencies, such battles have furthered the rift between people and the environment. This enhances the perception that conservation is really for, and of, the elite.

Conflicts and constituencies

Nothing exemplifies this better than conservationists’ recent battles over the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (RFRA), where they pitted themselves against forest dwelling communities and tribal interest groups. The RFRA presented an unprecedented opportunity, and political and administrative framework, for conservationists to join force with forest dwellers all across the country, but what followed were large volumes of vitriolic press and misinformation about the extent of ‘prime forest’ loss. Much of the opposition to the RFRA has come from conservationists who favor inviolate pristine areas. For this reason they strongly advocate relocation of communities. Some of these communities do have negative impacts on their environment, but surely no more so than the conservationists who are fighting the RFRA, and certainly far less than large industrial interests. And while many conservationists are fighting these industrial interests, so are forest dwelling communities, sometimes at the cost of their lives. There is a need to build different constituencies of support. The RFRA does, in fact, allude to such constituency building when it states in its preamble that inclusion of responsibilities (and not just rights) of sustainable use and biodiversity conservation will ‘strengthen the conservation regime of forests’.

Relocation

But conservationists (henceforth protectionists) oppose the RFRA, among other things, over the issue of relocation. And this despite procedure laid in Section 4(2) of the Act. This section allows for resettlement of rights in critical wildlife habitats, with a rider that certain procedures are followed. These include completion of rights vesting, establishing irreversible impacts of activities of rights-holders on wildlife, ruling out of co existence options, preparation and communication of resettlement packages, and written Gram Sabha consent on resettlement. Finally, forests thus emptied of people shall not be diverted for any other purpose.

Despite the RFRA trying to allocate land and overcome ambiguity over current tenancy, protectionists continue to claim that the alternative to land allocation and tenancy ambiguity is relocation. It is not clear that relocation helps conservation. There are few examples where it has been fairly and effectively implemented. Bad relocation almost invariably results in social and political disempowerment and further marginalisation. Relocation studies from Southeast Asia show that once people are moved out of an area it becomes open to the introgression of other vested interests including political and industrial interests. Protectionists, on the contrary, argue that continued or legitimate presence of people would actually facilitate introgression by vested interests such as land and timber mafias.

Contradictions

Protectionists who oppose the RFRA are the same people who spend considerable time and money educating the public on conservation—an effort they consider significant and perform well. Yet they do not realise the counterproductivity of opposing the legitimate interests of forest dwelling communities who have the most to gain from environmental protection—theirs is a sensitivity born of necessity. Protectionists are ignorant of the fact that such contradictory efforts will only turn millions of people against nature or conservation.

Community aspirations

The common goal of conservation and natural resource dependent communities is the long term survival of the resource. But there is an assumption in the RFRA that communities will remain forest residents—the RFRA do is not just seek to rectify ‘historical injustice,’ but,also to ‘strengthen the conservation regime,’ an aim that has futurist overtones whereby communities continue to reside in forests and conserve them. As protectionists have emphasised, many forest dwellers are on the same economic and social path that most urban and rural dwellers are. In the long run they will surely choose, or at least aspire, to move on from forest areas and assume consumerist identities like the rest of us. But for the time being one needs to pay attention to studies that have shown, time and again, that tenurial rights play a significant role in the sustainable use of resources by communities as long as they depend on them. The terms on which people leave the forests, and the sharing of ownership and benefits, may ultimately be critical.

Converging for conservation

Unlike certain protectionists who have been viscerally opposed to the RFRA, the responses of academicians and activists who engage with conservation have been more constructive. They seek to ensure that the RFRA has positive consequences for both forest dwellers and the environment. They genuinely believe that the goals of conservation have much in common with the concerns of livelihoods of local communities, and that, working together, these common goals can be achieved.

This article has been modified from a previous article in Tehelka Magazine with inputs from Siddhartha Krishnan.

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Real and Imagined Landscapes: Land Use and Conservation in the Menabe

Despite conservation efforts, the remaining dry deciduous forests in the Menabe region of western Madagascar are severely threatened by deforestation. I examined local concepts of landscapes in the village of Andranomena in the Menabe region in order to explore the underlying conditions and exacerbating factors causing deforestation and unsustainable land use. I investigated how the landscape is defined by the people who live in it, and how land use and economics are tied up in their concepts of land. The traditional and modern concepts of the same physical landscape contrast so starkly that the local people and those with the task of promoting conservation are functioning as though in two different realities. This disjunction has serious ramifications for conservation. Diverse local groups with different ideas about the landscape, and modern influences that run counter to conservation, further complicate the picture of deforestation.
In Andranomena, the following categories of land were used in everyday speech: tana (town or village), tanimbary (rice field), baibo (lowland garden), ala (forest), hatsake (slash-and-burn or swidden cultivation), and monka (fallow/spent land). Each of these categories carries fixed assumptions about different modes of land use, ownership, and economic participation. The traditional uses associated with these categories highlight important aspects of local Sakalava culture, and economic and social structures of rural Menabe. For instance, villages are made up of ‘natives’ – descendants of the person who first settled the land (the ‘master’ or ‘owner’ of the land), and ‘strangers.’ Natives and strangers are not on equal economic footing, as natives retain control over the most productive lands in the village. Rules for use of other lands limit strangers’ ability to make long-term investments.
This distinction shows how certain groups within a community have more economic pressure on them to participate in deforestation, and less cultural pressure to protect the forests. This situation, combined with the high value the Sakalava place on humility and community cohesion, also helps explain why the conservation strategy of investing money generated from tourism in the local community may be ineffective.
The custom of the landholder granting permissions for use, rather than buying and selling land, reinforces the power and responsibility natives hold. Forest and former forest land, understood as public resources, are an important source of basic subsistence needs for all, especially the most economically disadvantaged. Modern attempts to limit or control land use conflict with this outlook and with the traditional power structure. By taking, delineating, buying, or selling land that they have never worked, colonists and Malagasy government agencies alike have incurred resentment among those who follow the ‘first-come, first-served’ and permission-based system. Charging an entrance fee for a protected area disenfranchises the natives by placing the authority with outsiders who have cash, not those who know the land and are entrusted with upholding tradition.
To be effective, conservation must take  into consideration the complexities of local culture and economics. Understanding traditional ways of seeing the landscape is one important component of this effort, and can help explain discrepancies between policy and practice.
Originally published as:
Sandy, C. 2006. Real and Imagined Landscapes: Land Use and Conservation in the Menabe. Conservation and Society 4(2): 304–324.
Clare Sandy is an environmental compliance specialist with NewFields at Yosemite National Park, California, USA (csandy@alumni.brown.edu).

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

Section Summary
Perspectives on the Forest Rights Act


The contentious Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, (henceforth RFRA), contains in its preamble a sentence, ‘to strengthen the conservation regime of forests’.


The three articles in this section on the RFRA look at how such strengthening can happen from the perspectives of collective action and institutions. Collective action alludes not so much to the social science theory on how people can collectivise, but instead to the practical reasons why conservationists need to build constituencies involving local communities for better conservation outcomes. The institutional perspective is on clarification of the status of committees privileged in the RFRA for conservation.


The conservation regime of forests, then, can be strengthened if there is consensus and a sound institutional roadmap. Shanker argues that it is essential to have consensus on the opportunities that the RFRA offers for conservationists to work with forest communities who stand to gain the most from conservation initiatives and education, and who share the common goal of conservation.


Institutionally, Lele prescribes a clear roadmap for forest management. For instance, the legal status of committees to be constituted under the RFRA requires clearer explication, as do the statutory powers of its members, to stop felling. He stresses the need to learn from the unsuccessful history of Joint Forest Management ( JFM), and is critical of the draft rules of the RFRA, which tended to legitimise JFM.
Unlike Lele, I am less critical of the draft rules, and feel they offered some institutional structure. In my opinion, the changes made to the draft rules reflect a reduction of community roles— from potential epistemic partnerships of local and scientific knowledge in conservation to mere protection. But the genuflection to community is not uncritical. Shanker writes about the long-term aspirations of forest dwellers, even as he critiques the suggestion in the RFRA that ‘people-will-dwell-inforests- permanently.’ Lele cautions about hierarchies of caste, gender, etc., that characterise community pursuits and mentions the need to ensure equity in institutionalising participative conservation. All three essays seek to engage the reader with institutional, epistemic, and consensus-building perspectives on the RFRA.
Siddhartha Krishnan is the guest editor for this section.
Siddhartha Krishnan is a sociologist and is currently a Fellow, Social Sciences at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore (siddhartha.krishnan@atree.org).

This article is from issue

2.4

2008 Dec

Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World.

Brian Walker and David Salt. Island Press (2006).
Reviewed by Fred Nelson Integrative Thinking for a Changing Planet

“Whenever we pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe,” noted John Muir over a century ago. As human knowledge grows and so does the complexity, not only of ecological systems’ biophysical components but also of their social, cultural, and institutional dimensions, it has become increasingly apparent that our way of organising knowledge along disciplinary boundaries—particularly the relatively hard boundary between social and natural sciences— greatly limits our understanding of the world.

During the past twenty years, an ambitious group of multidisciplinary scientists called the Resilience Alliance  has emerged to try and develop a truly integrative framework for thinking about complex systems. They tellingly use the term ‘social ecological systems’, in recognition of the counterproductive nature of treating the human and biophysical components separately. As the group’s work has grown and expanded, they have developed a web site and blog, a thick edited volume describing their ideas called Panarchy (Island Press, 2002), and an open-access journal, Ecology and Society.

The Alliance’s latest effort, authored by one of its leading scientists (Walker) in collaboration with a popular science writer (Salt), Resilience Thinking, provides the most accessible introduction to the group’s work, ideas, and concepts. The authors’ objectives are to provide “a plainly written account of what resilience is all about, and how a resilience approach to managing resources differs from current practices.” Resilience Thinking succeeds masterfully in blending complexity and simplicity. Rich in ideas with the power to change the way people think about the world, the book is nevertheless parsimonious, at only 160 pages. The writing is lucid and manages to avoid shrouding ideas within the fog of technical jargon. Chapters alternate between five essays describing the key concepts the resilience framework has developed for understanding change in complex systems, and case studies providing practical illustrations of the concepts’ real-world application.

This format is highly effective. The authors skillfully deploy a diverse range of metaphors and practical examples to elucidate their framework. For example, one of the core concepts in resilience thinking is the idea of ‘thresholds’— effectively the same idea as the ‘tipping point’ popularized by Malcolm Gladwell’s best-seller of that name. Walker and Salt describe change in complex systems through the analogy of a tennis ball rolling around the bottom of a concave basin. Imagine that the ball is the condition of an ecosystem, while the basin in which the ball moves represents the set of possible states of the system. As the ball moves within the basin its condition changes, but so long as it is within a single basin the system maintains the same basic characteristics or functions. Now imagine that the basin lies contiguous with other similar basins, and if the ball moves enough in the basin it may roll over the rim and into another adjacent basin. When that happens, a system has crossed a threshold, and the new basin represents a system with fundamentally different dynamics, feedbacks, and functions. The ball-and-basin metaphor illustrates the key concept that change in social ecological systems is neither linear nor incremental, but often happens suddenly.

This aspect of change is central to the other fundamental concept in the resilience framework, the ‘adaptive cycle.’ The authors describe how change in complex systems tends to follow a pattern defined by four stages. Young systems undergo a phase of rapid growth, when the potential for new types of relationships or functions is high. As the system grows, it builds up more and more energy, relationships become more fixed, and the resilience of the system, or its capacity to respond to change and absorb shocks, declines. Eventually this build up of energy and declining adaptability leads to a release or collapse phase. The collapse then cycles back into a phase of reorganisation, which then leads back into the rapid growth phase.

In describing these cyclic phases, Walker and Salt use examples from both biological and social systems. It is equally useful to apply the adaptive cycle to ecological change—say, processes of forest growth and succession, which invariably cycle through phases of growth, release or disturbance, and reorganization—as to social systems and human enterprise. While the case study chapters are uniformly instructive and effectively complement the conceptual chapters, if there is one major weakness to the book it is that all of these examples come from developed countries—Western Europe, Australia, and North America. Given the intense pressures facing social ecological systems in the developing world, and the high rates of social, ecological, and institutional change currently occurring in those systems, the true test for resilience thinking will be how useful it is to understanding and anticipating system change in such settings. It is hoped this will be a major focus of the Resilience Alliance’s outputs moving forward.

In a world of accelerating change at multiple scales and increasingly interconnected social ecological systems, integrative thinking is not a creative luxury but a necessity. Resilience Thinking contains critical concepts and ideas for understanding this complexity and managing it as effectively as possible. It should become required reading for conservation practitioners and scholars around the world.

Endnote:
https://www.resalliance.org/1.php
www.ecologyandsociety.org

Originally published as:
Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World by Brian Walker and David Salt. Island Press, 2006.
Reviewed by Fred Nelson – Integrative Thinking for a Changing Planet. January 26, 2008. https://the-back-forty.net/2008/01/26/integrative-thinking- for-a-changing-planet

This article is from issue

2.3

2008 Sep

Rough Time in Paradise: Claims, Blames and Memory Making Around Some Protected Areas in Kenya

I use historical examples of forced relocation, or alleged relocation, from protected areas in Kenya to challenge  some of the points made by Rangarajan and Shahabuddin in their 2006 Conservation and Society article. I suggest that the debate thus far (at least within these pages) has failed to discuss the role and uses of social memory, especially in relation to land restitution claims. Also, that relocation should be examined in deep historical focus; anthropological analyses, although valuable, do not suffice. Imaginings of environment and ‘pastness’ by both European settlers and (in this case) indigenous Africans should be factored in and deconstructed.

Maasai communities were forcibly moved into reserves by the British colonial government in British East Africa (later called Kenya) in the 1900s. This was not done for conservation purposes, although portions of the areas to which the Maasai were moved were later set aside for national parks or game reserves. One of these areas — the Maasai Mara Game Reserve (MMGR) — has recently become the focus for restitution claims.

But from a historical — rather than a human rights — perspective, it is a very poor example because it can be proved that there was no forced eviction from the area that became MMGR, and few people were moved at all. No one lived there all year round, because of tsetse flies. Moreover, as a result of wildlife tourism revenues, the MMGR is today a milk cow for Maasai communities living around it, and for the Maasai-controlled county councils which manage it – facts that are conveniently ignored by those who claim it ought to be ‘returned’ to the community that effectively already owns it. Historical and contemporary land losses have been elided in Maasai social memory, leading to claims that all relocation from areas that became parks involved force. This is inaccurate, and is an example of what happens when ‘memory’ (and its uses in political agitation) becomes confused with ‘history.’
I also discuss criticism of my doctoral work, which questioned the veracity of Maasai oral testimony that I used when describing the environmental effects of the colonial- era moves and their impact on human and stock health. I debunk some of the points made by critics, comparing biological and historical approaches to my original case study and the disjuncture between the two. I advocate a fusion of disciplinary approaches, in order to produce more nuanced analyses.

Further, I discuss how the MMGR provides a good example of the need to look beyond rhetorical claims and to examine historical facts. I draw on contemporary oral and archival sources in order to prove that very few people were moved to make way for the reserve in 1948, and that the migration was not coerced.

This is set against claims by indigenous rights activists, which tend  to be accepted uncritically by their western sponsors, that the creation of the MMGR deprived the Maasai of some of their best land. These claims imply that the eviction was forced, when, in fact, Maasai elders reportedly ‘gave’ the Mara to the government. In conclusion, it is not correct to assume that all displacement from protected areas was coerced, just because politicians and pundits say so, or that forced removals took place at all in order to create certain parks. What scholars of social memory call ‘purposeful forgetting’ may be a factor on both sides of the fence—settler and indigenous.

Originally published as:
Hughes, L. 2007. Rough Time in Paradise: Claims, Blames and Memory Making Around Some Protected Areas in Kenya. Conservation and Society 5(3): 307–330.

This article is from issue

2.3

2008 Sep

Aversion to Relocation: A Myth?

Population displacement from protected areas is a contentious issue. To date, social science literature has largely been against displacement, given the social injustices and deprivations that have, in the past, resulted from it. Based upon over a decade of research on the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Maharashtra, India, by SHODH: The Institute for Research and Development, we would like to raise a few supplementary points.

When SHODH began its baseline socio-economic study of the six villages located within the TATR, we held the common opinion that displacement has a detrimental effect on oustees and should thus take place only as a final resort, if at all. However, our subsequent research has revealed that the TATR villagers are largely not averse to the idea of relocating, and in fact many actively want to relocate.

It is the harsh reality of residing within a protected area that has made displacement a preferred option for most. At present, exclusionary regulations are largely enforced in the TATR, despite village presence within the Reserve’s boundaries. Consequently, village occupants are viewed as ‘encroachers’ on their own land, and collecting minor forest products, cultivating crops, and grazing livestock is restricted. For the same reason, and also due to their remote locations, the TATR villages also do not receive sufficient external development assistance. They therefore lack access to all-weather roads and thus to markets, they lack schools beyond fourth grade, and there is only one hospital. They are also isolated from the wider economy and the livelihood options that it offers, and thus have little option but to engage in forest-dependent occupations that are neither profitable, nor a preferred choice for most.

A member of Botezari village likened living in Tadoba to residing at the bottom of a well, unable to escape and take advantage of the outside world, while a former sarpanch (head) of Jamni village was resolute that having seen her children grow up isolated from educational opportunities and thus illiterate, she would not see her grandchildren grow up the same way.

The legal obligation to move the TATR villages has been discussed for almost two decades. To date, two of the villages (Botezari and Kolsa) are in the process of moving out of the Reserve to a site that they themselves have selected. Two other villages (Navegaon and Jamni) have also expressed their desire to shift, particularly due to increased instances of crop depredation by wild animals, and loss of human life and livestock to tigers. However, for reasons known only to the authorities, these villagers’ willingness to relocate has so far been ignored. The remaining two villages (Rantalodhi and Palasgaon), though not so enthused by the idea of displacement, have come up with various conditional charters of demands.

While these demands are very high, this in part reflects the villagers political awareness. Indeed, there are certain indications that their demands are negotiable and thus that these villages too have some interest in relocation. It is also important to note that just because negative assessments of past displacements dominate the literature, it need not be impossible to engineer a relocation that raises local living standards, and reduces, rather than re-establishes, previous poverty levels. Indeed, the current relocation of Botezari and Kolsa, despite taking a long time to come to fruition, looks set to have many positive consequences for the villagers in question.

While there have been numerous complications along the way, and the villagers that have already shifted are currently facing a range of problems as they settle in, the relocation site holds a level of amenities considerably greater than that in the original villages, and also greater than that in nearby villages outside the Reserve. Moreover, the relocation site is close to urban centres and all-weather roads, which should enable villagers to reduce their unwanted dependence upon forest-related occupations that are also low paying. Therefore, in our view, to assert that displacement is inadvisable and socially unacceptable in all situations is just as problematic as it is to advocate involuntary displacement.

These points do not seek in any way to undermine the pressing need to explore the more theoretical, academic issue of the social (and for that matter biological) efficacy of the ‘fortress’ approach to conservation. Yet in the meantime, it is important not to fall into the trap of arguing against relocation as ‘a matter of social principle’. As long as it is conducted in a sensitive and participatory manner, relocation has great potential to facilitate socioeconomic development rather than inhibit it.

Originally published as:
Ghate, R. and K. Beazley. 2007. Aversion to Relocation: A Myth? Conservation and Society 5(3): 331–334.

This article is from issue

2.3

2008 Sep

Land Restitution and Protected Areas in South Africa

Many protected areas have come into being because part, or all, of the area was denuded of people in order to promote a nature conservation agenda. South Africa is no exception. South Africa has had a democratic government since 1994 when apartheid ended. One new constitutional requirement is that people who lost their right to land for racially-based reasons after 1913 (the year of the notorious Native Land Act) are entitled to restitution. By March 2007, nearly 80,000 claims had been recorded and 74,417 settled through the transfer of 810,292 ha of land and compensation payouts totalling ZAR 2 billion. Some claims have been against protected areas that are run by organs of the state. In many parts of the world land claims against protected areas are resisted by the government, but this is not the case in South Africa, where redress is a national priority. However, another national priority is sustainability and biodiversity conservation, and the difficult objective has been to reconcile the two. State forest plantations totalling 18.28 million ha have been handed over to claimants who will continue the process of sustainable extraction.

South Africa is agriculturally poor and eco-tourism is often the most sustainable land use. With this in mind, the state has encouraged those with claims against national parks, game reserves and other protected areas to use their post-restitution ownership to benefit from the cash that is generated by tourism, thus accelerating the delivery of education and other social goals and creating employment.

In handing over to local communities their ownership of the Great St. Lucia Wetland Park (a World Heritage Site on the coast of KwaZulu-Natal), the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs said in 2007, “For the settlement of this claim, the state has committed a total of about ZAR 89 million… I am pleased that the communities have agreed to restoration of rights without physical occupation, and that the current use of the land will be maintained… The skills transfer through training, mentorship and experiential management must take place…”

Laudable as this goal is, reaching it requires careful post-restitution management. It is often at this stage that fresh challenges arise. One example is the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in the arid Northern Cape Province, where a community of about 300 people, the Khomani San, were given 25,000 ha within the park and 43,000 ha of farmland just outside it after a successful land claim. In spite of being the richest landowners in the area, they were soon divided into ‘traditionals’ (who wanted to revert to a forager lifestyle) and ‘moderns’ (who wanted to engage with the tourist industry and other enterprises). Thus while government officials, lawyers, donors, and non-governmental organisations had helped facilitate a successful land claim so as to restore lost land and dignity, they did not foresee the splintering of the group, and the rancour and great loss of money that ensued. This case may well provide caution for social scientists and planners to contextualise each land eviction carefully, taking both history and community into account.

Originally published as:
Carruthers, J. 2007. ‘South Africa:A World in One Country:’ Land Restitution in National Parks and Protected Areas. Conservation and Society 5(3): 292–306.

This article is from issue

2.3

2008 Sep