MANY endangered species remain on the edge of survival. Most are imperilled by degradation of habitats, some by direct elimination. However, these biological losses – or attempts to halt or reverse them – are centrally reliant not on science per se as on the quality of governance and the wider social setting.

It is commonplace to blame the absence of political will as a barrier to successful efforts to save endangered species. Effective administrative intervention has often helped in species and ecosystem recovery in India. Similarly, inept government efforts have accelerated loss or degradation of habitats with adverse impact on rare wildlife.

The challenges are best illustrated by species in dire trouble due to their specialized habitats, habits or diets. By sharply focusing on endangered, threatened or near threatened categories of wildlife (as defined by international conservation policy making bodies), it is possible to tease out phenomena that have wider ecological implications.

Scientific studies depict that these species mostly have a long-term future in the few well protected national parks and wildlife sanctuaries (broadly termed as Protected Areas, PAs) of the country.¹ Though there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions, but a careful look at the present system of wildlife conservation governance is the best place to begin.

The dominant preservationist ideology in India has, for over half a century now, held that the only way to conserve wildlife effectively in our complex socio-economic and demographic milieu is by investing in strong legislation, creating inviolate spaces and enforcing the law strictly with a regimented state force.

Between 1970 and 1990, several forest areas were brought under PA category. Till 1970, India had a total of 67 PAs, a number which increased to 491 (a 732% increase) over those twenty years. Several new legislations, including the powerful Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and Forest Conservation Act 1980, were passed. In addition, several states formulated their own legislations to further the cause. Field protection mechanisms were strengthened with the establishment of protocols for management. All this resulted in several endangered species recovering from the brink of extinction.

This was possible due to political leadership that was sympathetic towards wildlife conservation, single party rule both at the Centre and most other states, and finally, the state controlled economy. Forests were now seen from a conservation perspective rather than an economic view. Major revenue generation activities such as timber felling and mining were halted within PAs.

This model largely relied upon a strong alignment between policy, legislation and implementation by the bureaucratic set-up. Conservation models are very dynamic especially in a multifarious setting like ours. As mentioned earlier, this model worked reasonably well but since the mid-1990s several factors have begun to affect wildlife conservation in the country.

 

Broadly speaking, this model of conservation is today challenged both externally and internally. Externally, the challenges emanate from deepening democracy (most times through misuse of democracy) and the huge impetus for economic growth. These in turn are compounded by a spectrum of internal challenges within the main implementing agency, the forest department, ranging from mission drift, corruption, closure to knowledge, and chronic systemic inefficiencies.

The country’s political dynamics has changed dramatically over the years. Currently, only six of the sixteen important tiger bearing states in the country are ruled by the principal party in the central government. The rest are ruled either by other leading political parties or through coalitions. Forests and wildlife are part of the concurrent list of the Constitution. Though the central government formulates policies, laws and supports through funding, state governments have a lead role in management. This poses considerable challenges when the political parties ruling the state and Centre have divergent philosophies. Coalition governments also pose serious challenges as coalition partners can have hugely differing opinions.

 

The reforms initiated through the 73rd constitutional amendment in the country’s grassroots level too have seriously impacted the way PAs are governed today. The establishment of panchayati raj system in 1993, with such well-intended goals as decentralized administration and empowerment at the village level, has changed the way park administrators can manage and protect wildlife. Political compulsions now begin at the same levels which were set-up to bestow empowerment. Since loss of habitat quality is more a locally induced chronic threat, managers invariably come under intense local political pressure and interference with, most times, disastrous results for wildlife.

The country has now moved away from a state dominated system to a neoclassical liberal economy growing at nine per cent annually. The increasing pace of industrialization and growing developmental projects pose grave threat to wildlife. The market has turned incredibly savvy and the new actors have the political clout to change anything that comes in their way, including the law. The weakening of certain forest conservation laws and monitoring institutions are examples of the growing clout of the market oriented forces.

It is not that state implemented developmental projects do not have serious conservation ramifications. Unfortunately, public service utilities such as roads, railway lines, power transmission lines, power projects, all governed and implemented by government agencies, receive softer scrutiny while according permissions even when implemented in ecologically sensitive areas.

A highway proposed through Pench Tiger Reserve, the tunnel under construction through Nagarjunsagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve, the Dhamra Port on the Orissa coast which threatens Olive Ridley turtles, the thirteen massive hydroelectric projects planned in the biologically rich Arunachal Pradesh despite their seismic threats, proposed uranium mining in Balpakram National Park in Meghalaya – are all testimonies to increasing economic pressures on our PAs. Seven road upgradation projects in Karnataka threaten ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats including Kudremukh National Park, Bandipur and Anshi-Dandeli Tiger Reserves. The list is endless.

 

The earlier model of wildlife conservation largely relied on a beat patrol system, intelligence gathering, and efficiently handling prosecution, all of which ensured that wildlife species got a reprieve and expanded in numbers. However, due to various reasons, including demands of multilateral donor agencies and from civil society, wildlife management has shifted away from its primary objective.

Instead of wildlife, PA managers have largely shifted focus towards ‘ecodevelopment’ and ‘habitat improvement’ activity. Previously, PA management suffered from a lack of funding. However, since the ’90s, generous lending from multilateral aid agencies to ecodevelopment centred PA management has increased manifold. After the Sariska fiasco, when it was discovered that the reserve was devoid of tigers, funding for tiger conservation through internal sources has also been increased. Similarly, PAs also get higher funding under various other central government schemes including the Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats, Project Elephant and Compensatory Afforestation Fund and Planning Authority (CAMPA). The direct effects and by-products of such increased funding needs careful scrutiny.

 

The much proclaimed India Eco-Development Project (IEDP) that was implemented in seven reserves with loans from the World Bank-Global Environment Facility, cost the country Rs 300 crore. Yet this project provides us with no biological evaluations that might depict success. Even at Periyar, the billboard of IEDP shows no biological evidence of project success.² My research at Periyar reveals that most infrastructure (community halls, crop protection measures, solar street lights, community wells) into which investments were made to gain support for the tiger reserve were either in poor shape or nonexistent two years after the project ended. Project beneficiaries in comparison to non-beneficiaries showed little support for wildlife conservation, the principal aim of the project.

Studies by researchers from Pondicherry University showed that there was unsustainable resource extraction from Kalakad-Munduntharai Tiger Reserve where another World Bank funded ecodevelopment initiative (Forestry Research Education and Extension Project) was undertaken to reduce people’s dependence on the reserve’s biomass.³ Nor did the project change the underlying attitudes of communities towards the tiger reserve. Even where communities had more favourable attitudes towards the reserve, it did not translate into sustainable practices.⁴

 

Large-scale activities are carried out under the guise of ‘habitat improvement’ with little scientific understanding of the impacts of the works carried out. Soil and moisture conservation, weed clearance, development/maintenance of meadows, habitat enrichment, bamboo hoeing (applying chemical fertilizers to natural bamboo clums) are some popular ‘habitat improvement’ activities that are yet to be evaluated for their efficacy.

Likewise, substantial funds are repeatedly used for ‘civil works’ such as culverts, bridges, roads and so on. Tens of kilometres of forest roads are constructed using heavy machinery every year in PAs without comprehending the impact of excessive forest roads and the disturbance caused by movement of heavy machinery on wildlife. Now more money is available under various other government schemes including the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), which is further denuding wildlife habitats.

This poor understanding of ecological needs of wildlife species among managers has led to loss of habitats or local extinction of species. Management practices that are not in line with the ecological needs of wildlife species have resulted in local extinction of the Great Indian Bustard from Ranibennur Wildlife Sanctuary and have negatively impacted four-horned antelope densities in some PAs of Karnataka.⁵ Several other similar examples could be quoted to strengthen this argument.

Governance is ridden with various other problems including corruption⁶ which leads to ecologically unsustainable use of natural resources⁷ degrading habitats and makes way for projects that fragment and/or denude wildlife habitats.

 

The IEDP project in Nagarahole National Park that pumped in large sums of money, several times higher than the normal annual budgets, was halted midway by the government due to allegations of financial misappropriation. The state ombudsman (lokayukta) unearthed misuse of crores, apart from highlighting the case of 12,000 trees cut and smuggled out of the reserve. This adverse impact on the PA happened largely due to the shift in focus of the already understaffed field personnel, now assigned with the additional task of ecodevelopment activity. Rural development work needs trained professionals and is not the forte of those who are skilled in field protection. Similar irregularities under IEDP were noticed in Gir and Pench reserves by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.⁸

Increased interference by political leaders in personnel management of PA staff, including transfers and postings, causes a deep dent in PA management. The increasing corruption significantly affects conservation efforts, as incumbents find ways to offset the cost of getting posted to ‘lucrative’ areas.

 

In part, social tolerance towards wildlife had helped the cause. Even crop marauding wildlife such as elephants was revered. This is changing due to various factors. In Karnataka alone, the number of elephants killed by farmers retaliating against crop raiding has increased from eight in 2005-06 to 28 in 2008-09. The problem can only escalate in the coming days if mitigation measures to bring down human-wildlife conflict to tolerable limits are not seriously attempted. Large-scale habitat manipulation, increased fragmentation and denudation of habitats are the most important causes of this conflict.

Nevertheless, this model of preservation is holding together under certain settings. Despite all the shortcomings in the institutional set-up, individual managers with commitment have succeeded in bringing back wildlife to their ecological carrying capacities. These individuals have the capacity to implement policies and perform in an effective and efficient manner. Because of their negotiating ability and public relations, they are able to act as an interface between institutions, local communities, political leaders and their own staff. The work of some of these dynamic managers is reflected in the recovery of various PAs in the country.

Even to this day amidst all compulsions, there are a few civil servants and politicians who are sympathetic to the cause of conservation. Several conservation threats have been successfully countered through the collaborative effort of civil society and PA managers.

In Karnataka the closure of night traffic on three highways in Nagarahole (SH 17D) and Bandipur Tiger Reserves (NH 212 and NH 67), or the relocation of villages from Bhadra Tiger Reserve, are few such examples. But more than cooperation by the local machinery, the fundamental prerequisite for success was focused thinking, clear understanding of the issue and timely action.

 

The closure of night traffic on the Mysore-Mananthavadi highway (SH 17D) within Nagarahole has helped reduce the effects of fragmentation on wildlife, especially for wide ranging species. Preliminary results from our research work clearly depict the impact of traffic density on wildlife. Certain wildlife species such as the tiger, leopard and gaur avoided using the area with daytime traffic densities. Though some species such as the chital and elephants did not respond very negatively to traffic density, the severe effects of vehicular traffic on chital could be seen on the highways that cut through Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Most roadkills caused by speeding vehicles are of chital, one of the main prey of tigers. A majority of the other wildlife killed on the highways were of small-bodied, nocturnal mammals. But mortality of tiger, sloth bear, leopard, four-horned antelope and elephant was also recorded on these highways. The night closure of both these highways provides a major reprieve for wildlife.

The relocation of 419 families from Bhadra Tiger Reserve is seen as a model and has set benchmarks for successful conservation induced displacement. Families feel largely satisfied with the relocation and now have better access to health, schooling, transportation, education and other amenities.⁹ Very importantly, provision of fertile land and land tenure security were crucial components for improvement of livelihoods.

But the results of such actions might not endure if succeeding officers lack similar commitment and proficiency. As a result, positive conservation outcomes in the government system have become largely individualistic with little institutional commitment and long-term planning. No wonder, a change in leadership often has dramatic negative results and constant change in guard affects the performance and stability of PAs.

 

Effective wildlife management needs both a basic understanding of the ecology of wildlife (or natural history skills) and a pragmatic grasp of social and political contexts of conservation. Capacity development can take place around the former while the latter comes from empirical experience and personal interests. Clearly, efficient governance is beyond the domain of science and cannot be learnt in a classroom. Wherever such capacity is available in individual managers, they should be preferred in deploying for PA management.

Developing a motivated and well-paid staff would also improve governance. With the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, managers at the higher cadre are now well compensated, but the gap has to be filled for field staff. Innovative ways of funding through utilization of monies from CAMPA and tiger conservation foundations can reduce some of the problems of lower level staff.

Successful wildlife governance needs constant interest and support of some key sectors, political groups in particular. Developing a network of political constituencies at all levels (from village to federal) and fostering it through informed outreach will provide a great boost for conservation. The power of political groups to change conservation dynamics is little understood and/or utilized by the conservation community. Political groups, apart from reducing threats that emanate from large developmental projects can also help contain local demands that place greater pressure on biomass. Overall, such networks help enhance governance capacity as the managers, at all levels, will be insulated from undue duress.

 

Civil society, conservation biologists, activists and supporters of wildlife must prioritize their list of strategies and constantly engage with the power-houses for effective results. We need to develop a commitment to go through the grind of working with government, which is often unattractive to most players in the conservation sector.

PA budgets are on the increase and this should not digress the attention of managers from their core duty of protection to other developmental activity. The challenge is to spend the money towards mitigating staff problems at the lower levels, enhancing field protection, motivating field staff and other similar activities.

Corruption is largely institutionalized in India; however, specially while dealing with non-renewable resources such as wildlife, it needs to be curtailed and we should show little or no tolerance. Though state anti-corruption agencies have been assigned the task of curtailing this evil and some civil society keeps a hawk-eye, self-regulation among conservation managers is of utmost value. In a country where demand for natural resources, including land, is on the rise, curtailing corruption will play a leading role in ensuring effective management. However, it is to be noted that even civil society is not free from this evil.

 

Protected areas protect beyond flagship species, and are our best bet for protecting source populations of endangered species, as well as several lesser known taxa and micro-habitats. Saving these landscapes in the real world context is complicated and cannot be done merely through ‘save wildlife’ slogans. Neither are they based on complicated statistical modelling alone. Conservation management can be made more accountable through independent auditing and there is a strong need to develop meaningful indicators to measure success. One such measure would be the ability of managers to work towards ecological needs of wildlife.

Conservation managers are largely too withdrawn to seek external support. In this continuously changing world, support is always handy especially for concerns such as wildlife conservation that are low on the political priority agenda. For this to be achievable, a radical change in mindset is essential. Managers who work with external, mutually supporting agencies are more successful in countering threats. It has to be similarly reciprocated by outside agencies.

Otherwise, as Reed Noss, a leading conservation scientist, puts it well: ‘If conservation biologists fail to respond, there will be plenty of economists, developers, industrialists, timber executives, livestock barons, and others jostling to offer their advice. Who will speak for biodiversity?¹⁰

 

Footnotes:

1. U. Karanth and R. Chellam, ‘Carnivore Conservation at the Crossroads’, Oryx 43, 2009, 1-2.

2. S. Gubbi, M. Linkie and N. Leader-Williams, ‘Evaluating the Legacy of an Integrated Conservation and Development Project Around a Tiger Reserve in India’, Environmental Conservation 35, 2009, 331-339.

3. M. Arjunan, J.P. Puyravaud and P. Davidar, ‘The Impact of Resource Collection by Local Communities on the Dry Forests of the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve’, Tropical Ecology 46, 2005, 135-143.

4. M. Arjunanan, C. Holmes, Jean-Philippe Puyravaud and P. Davidar, ‘Do Developmental Initiatives Influence Local Attitudes Toward Conservation? A Case Study From the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India’, Journal of Environmental Management 79, 2006, 188-197.

5. Y.C. Krishna, J. Krishnaswamy and N.S. Kumar, ‘Habitat Factors Affecting Site Occupancy and Relative Abundance of Four-Horned Antelope’, Journal of Zoology 276, 2008, 63-70.

6. R.J. Smith, R.D.J. Muir, M.J. Walpole, A. Balmford and N. Leader-Williams, ‘Governance and the Loss of Biodiversity’, Nature 426, 2003, 67-70.

7. P. Robbins, ‘The Rotten Institution: Corruption in Natural Resource Management’, Political Ecology 19, 2000, 423-443.

8. K.U. Karanth, ‘Put a Tiger in Your Bank’, Down to Earth 17, 2008, 58-59.

9. K.K. Karanth, ‘Making Resettlement Work: The Case of India’s BhadraWildlife Sanctuary’, Biological Conservation 139, 2007, 315-324.

10. R.F. Noss, ‘Who Will Speak For Biodiversity?’ Conservation Biology 3, 1989, 202-203.