There are two States that have constantly opposed wildlife and
environment protection laws —Uttarakhand and Kerala. These States also rely
heavily on nature tourism that brings in the much-needed economic support for
them as well as to the people who depend on this industry.
Though they face the wrath of nature quite often — floods in
Uttarakhand and sea erosion in Kerala are becoming a common feature — they
generally look at the natural world with very different priorities. They
determinedly and effectively market their natural world but their strategic
views are at odds with nature conservation. They regularly bring in plebiscite,
heavily opposing any move towards the protection of nature, be it the
implementation of existing laws such as identification and notification of
eco-sensitive zones or accepting the opinions of experts who have toiled for
ages in the field of environment conservation.
Political reasons
What makes these two States heavily opposed to save nature and
wildlife despite accruing direct economic benefits from nature? One of the
political reasons for poor implementation of conservation laws was the
fractured election results which bring in different ruling players at the
Centre and the State making implementation of certain regulations that are on
the concurrent list of the Constitution difficult.
However, the examples of these two States give a different
picture as both are ruled by the same political party that holds power in New
Delhi. Key conservation laws in the country including the Indian Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 are all contributions of the Nehru family, the principal
icon of the Congress party. Surprisingly, their own parties oppose
implementation of these laws.
Let us take for instance, stoppage of vehicular traffic at night
through the core of Bandipur Tiger Reserve in Karnataka in affirmation of the
Wildlife Protection Act. This has been challenged by the Kerala Government at
three different platforms — the High Court, the Supreme Court and the National
Green Tribunal. Though an alternative exists and the government of Karnataka
has even provided funding to the tune of Rs.48 crore to improve the alternative
road, the neighbours are not content. Similarly, all forest conservation laws
have been severely violated to facilitate boulder mining and building power
projects in Uttarakhand.
If States show disrespect and neglect towards laws, are we
proceeding in the right direction in this federal system? Now, States even
question the scientific basis of nature conservation. Till date, nature
preservation was largely based on aesthetics, and to a less extent on ethical
values that resulted in conservation success stories. In future, battling for
nature based on these values will be challenged. This highlights a basic lacuna
in wildlife science.
On management
Wildlife science rarely addresses questions that are relevant to
management or to elected representatives. These are: How to reduce
human-wildlife conflict? What is the value of ecosystem services of a wildlife
habitat? What is the scientific basis of habitat management that is the pretext
of developing fodder and water for wildlife?
Unfortunately, we have no quantitative evidence in the Indian
context to answer these questions that are very important for managing wildlife
habitats or that have been causes of erosion of public support for wildlife
conservation.
Though we boast of high quality wildlife science that has been
carried out for decades, we have failed to provide answers to problems that are
pertinent to real world conservation. Increasingly, scientists hide behind
court orders or disasters such as the recent elephant conflict near Bangalore,
that claimed five lives in a short span of three days, to claim that science is
being used for management. They fail to actively market their research
findings. If wildlife science continues to pursue subjects that is based only
on individual’s interests, it will have less and less value for nature
preservation. Nor will it be of any use for the betterment of society that is
one of the key selling points of nature conservation.
I can expect an eloquent response to this article about the
responsibility of science culminating with publications, but the real world
aspects of conservation in a country like India are often beyond the ambit of
peer-reviewed science.
If wildlife science continues to show apathy towards real-world
conservation problems like the States do towards conservation laws, there could
soon be an end to the support of those who have been key to preserve our
ecologically important areas. There could be a day when they will learn their
lessons through costly mistakes.
