Indian Institute of Science scholar speaks on India's elephants

[Guest guest]

http://www.hindu.com/nic/raman.htm

*On the edge *

 

*G. ANANTHAKRISHNAN*

 

*Can India save its natural spaces and its wild elephants as it pursues the

goal of rapid economic growth? Dr. Raman Sukumar clarifies the issues at

stake.*

 

*Dr. Raman Sukumar, leading conservation biologist at the Indian Institute

of Science, Bangalore, has conducted a quarter century of research on the

Western Ghats, the Asian elephant and its interaction with humans. He

recently became the first Indian to be awarded the International Cosmos

Prize. Can wild elephants and people co-exist in a growing India? With some

visionary policies, they can, he says. *

 

PHOTO: T.l. PRABHAKAR AND N. SRIDHARAN

 

*Points of conflict: Elephant habitats continue to be under threat, says Dr.

Raman Sukumar

 

*

 

*Congratulations on winning the International Cosmos Prize. You have

distinguished credentials in research on the Asian elephant. What is the

status of this magnificent species in India today?*

 

*Raman Sukumar:* In terms of numbers the elephant has fortunately managed to

hold its ground in India, and even increase by about 40 per cent over the

past 25 years. This is contrary to what has been happening in most other

Asian countries where elephants have declined during this period; thus the

increase in India has offset the decline elsewhere. With about 28,000 or

more wild elephants and 3,500 captive elephants, India is home to more than

50 per cent of the population of this species in the world. Numbers however

do not convey the full story, as you know. The elephant's habitat continues

to be under threat in many parts, and the male to female ratio has skewed

considerably especially in the south, while makhnas (tuskless males) are

gradually replacing tuskers in the northeast.

 

*Is there reason for optimism about the rise in the elephant population,

when the natural areas of the country are under pressure?*

 

*Sukumar:* You are right. I think we are approaching the saturation point as

regards numbers of elephants in many regions. The Western Ghats has one of

the highest densities of elephants globally. The fragmented habitats of

Orissa and Jharkhand, under further threat from mining, obviously cannot

hold many more elephants – the conflict between elephants and humans is

already too high in this region. In the Northeast the habitat for elephants

is declining. Finally, we may be able to hold on to only a certain

proportion of the elephant's habitat and numbers.

 

*As anthropogenic activity raises the possibility of frequent elephant-human

confrontations, is there a compensation-based model to handle this sensitive

issue? Can a system of compensation help and rehabilitation safeguard the

interests of both people and elephants? *

 

*Sukumar:* I think that compensation can only be a temporary solution and

that too in areas with low levels of conflict. In the long term we can solve

conflict (or should I say minimize conflict) only by maintaining the

integrity of elephant landscapes. This means that we should begin in earnest

the reversal of fragmentation through protection, strengthening or creation

of corridors. This is not easy but I believe this can be done if sufficient

resources are made available and if there is sufficient will. I think the

resources are now available in our country but I am not so sure about the

will. If we can put up with large scale displacement of people because of

dams, or acquire lands for expressways, why not rehabilitate people living

within or close to critical corridors? In most of these areas people are fed

up with conflict and are eager to relocate to other places.

 

In other places we need to involve communities in maintaining barriers such

as electric fences, or experiment with chemical deterrents. During my recent

visit to Kenya I found that red chili applied on ropes strung across the

crop fields holds a lot of promise in keeping away elephants. On occasion, a

notorious elephant that kills people has to be captured or eliminated. We

thus have to use region-specific methods to control conflict.

 

*At a more macro level, can India preserve its natural heritage in the face

of economic growth targets and pressure on land and resources?*

 

*Sukumar:* This is the crux of the problem. In spite of all the debate over

conservation issues and problems, I believe that the real pressures are only

just beginning, when India is poised to grow economically at over 8 per cent

per year, and our human population continues to increase at a noticeable

rate in many regions. Highways, railway lines, mining projects, dams,

industries and commercial ventures all threaten to further fracture our

already fragmented forests.

 

*What according to you are the biggest threats to the protected areas of the

country today?*

 

*Sukumar:* There are several threats. The first threat is that the protected

areas may eventually become islands if the demands of development become

intense. At present we are still fortunate in that larger landscapes

incorporating protected areas and reserved forests still exist in some parts

of the country, for instance, the Western Ghats, central India and the

northeast, but all this could change quickly. Second, we have little idea of

what is happening below the forest canopy. Invasive plants such as *Lantana,

* *Chromolaena* and *Mickania* could be altering the basic structure of our

forests and their biodiversity. Soils may be changing in their properties.

Animal populations would follow suit. In other words, the functioning of our

ecosystems may be fundamentally altering. I do not have to elaborate on the

human pressures on our PAs. Poaching continues to be a threat in many PAs.

Finally, climate change could cause radical shifts in the biodiversity.

within the present boundaries of our protected areas, and we have hardly

begun to think of how to deal with the consequences.

 

*What could be the possible impact of high levels of fragmentation on the

flora and fauna of the country, starting with the elephant? Perhaps we

should reconcile ourselves to the loss of a significant level of our

biodiversity as the only realistic way forward? *

 

*Sukumar: *There will be some loss of biodiversity whether we like it or

not. Much of this will never be known because those species such as plants,

insects, other invertebrates, or even amphibians may not have been described

by science in the first place. Fragmentation will increase the conflict

between wildlife and people; this is already very clear in the case of our

elephant populations. At the same time, we must recognize that we cannot

hold on to every elephant or elephant population, and some of those in

highly fragmented areas will eventually have to be removed. Thus, the vision

for Project Elephant was that we should focus at conserving the more viable

populations of elephants in the larger, more intact landscapes. Some of our

protected areas or even tiger reserves are badly designed, and their

boundaries will have to be altered to make their more viable ecologically.

 

*The International Cosmos Prize citation mentions your work on climate

change. Is climate change real or is it being hyped?*

 

*Sukumar:* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of

several hundred scientists, has been objectively assessing the evidence on

climate change. and has brought our several volumes on this subject Today,

even the diehard critics accept that climate change, as a direct result of

human activity such as burning fossil fuels and forests, and putting out

greenhouse gases, is inevitable. A warming trend has already set in – for

instance, during the 20th century the estimated rise in average global

temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius. This has not been explained by any

natural cause but is consistent with expectation from observed increase in

atmospheric greenhouse gases. In spite of several uncertainties the models

clearly indicate a more significant rise in temperature during this century.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are going to reach levels not seen in

the earth's history over the past half a million years, you can expect

something to happen! There are uncertainties over feedbacks from increase in

cloud cover or from aerosols, but change on a scale not seen in human

lifetimes now seems certain.

 

*What is the significance of climate change for India and its island

territories? Will there be economic consequences of climate change in India,

such as direct impacts on forests, agriculture, fisheries and public health?

*

 

*Sukumar: *First, we need to understand how climate is likely to change over

India in the coming decadesI am not a climatologist, but I understand from

my colleagues in this field that the Indian monsoon system is one of the

most complex climate systems and hence difficult to model and predict. As a

signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, India sent its

initial national communication on the subject in 2005. The Hadley Centre in

the UK has summarized the results from various models for climate change

over India.

 

Broadly, there will be an increase in temperature as expected due to global

warming. Changes in rainfall are more uncertain. There could be increase in

the northeast, decrease in the northwest and little change in the south.

Some models that my colleagues and I have used to look at on changes in our

forests indicate that about three-fourths of these may change from one

vegetation type to another during this century. Now this has huge

implications for our biodiversity and conservation strategies. If sea levels

rise from melting ice, our island territories and coastlines would be

threatened. India's NATCOM report (available on the web) also details

possible changes in agricultural productivity, fisheries and human health.

 

*Is it possible to have both economic growth and conservation? There are

many activists who think human welfare must be given priority over flora and

fauna preservation everywhere, including forests. Can the two be separated?

That is, if we convert our forests to other uses and allow them to be freely

exploited to address employment and livelihood concerns, will it not be

wholly positive, they ask. *

 

*Sukumar:* There cannot be conservation if economic growth is allowed to

bulldoze our natural areas. While human welfare is certainly important, it

would be utterly foolish to think that converting all our forests or most of

them would result in economic emancipation! Some of our poorest and most

economically backward states such as Jharkhand and Orissa are those where

forests have been exploited on a large scale for mining. India is growing

economically mainly because of the so-called service sector. If we can grow

using our brainpower, there is no need to add that extra 0.5 per cent

through overexploitation of forests for short-term commercial gains. This

will further impoverish local people including tribals.

 

I recognize that large numbers of our people depend on forests for their

livelihoods. As long as this is truly livelihood, and not large-scale

exploitation for the market, we should certainly permit this in some forest

areas. At the same time, it is essential to keep a certain percentage of the

country's forests completely free of any exploitation. We can decide whether

it is 1 per cent or 5 per cent or whatever. There must be massive investment

in increasing productivity outside our forest areas; why not grow plants

being presently exploited for non-timber forest products outside? We must

also have a clear land-use policy for our forests and their immediate

vicinity. Which zones such as corridors are critical? Where can industry or

tourism be permitted and where should there be a moratorium? This should be

clearly spelt out for our protected areas and other forests.

 

A major problem today is the impoverishment of forest-dwelling people or

subsistence farmers who eke out a living near forest areas, resulting in

social unrest and conflict. I think that in a democratic country it is

imperative to ensure social and economic equity if conservation is to be

long lasting. One way to promote this is to ensure that a larger slice of

the economic cake from commercial ventures, whether it is tourism or

industry, near forest areas flows to local communities. If there is an

eco-tourism venture near a protected area, for instance, why not have a

policy such that the land is taken on long-term lease and that alienation of

land does not occur? In this way, greater economic benefits would go to

villagers and subsistence farmers. At the same time, we should get out of

this mindset that poor farmers should continue subsistence farming and not

change to any other form of land use.

 

*Are India's conservation policies framed on sound lines? *

 

*Sukumar:* We have good intentions and some good conservation policies,

though we need more in areas such as wildlife tourism or land use within and

near our forest areas. The problem is effective implementation of policies

at the ground level. As an aside, let me mention the infrastructure problem

at Bangalore that everyone is talking about. You may recall the Supreme

Court order some months ago that all lorries carrying sand, stones or

whatever should be covered. The first week after this order, I noticed that

most if not all lorries obeyed this rule. After that it is business as

usual, and the lorries merrily ply through Bangalore's roads without any

covering, spilling stones and sand without a care!

 

To go back to conservation, We basically have good laws in the Wildlife

Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act, and good programmes such as

Project Elephant and Project Tiger. These have to be effectively implemented

by the states, but political expediency and serious bottlenecks such as lack

of manpower on the ground (half the posts of forest guards have been vacant

for decades even in our PAs) impede implementation. The biggest challenge is

to reconcile conservation with the need for economic betterment of

forest-dwelling people, especially tribals. Obviously, India is a very

heterogeneous country and thus bringing all sections of society around to a

particular viewpoint is going to be difficult, but not impossible. Some are

talking about management of our wildlife areas by people (as opposed to

professionals) but I think this is too radical and unworkable. Protected

areas will have to be managed by professionals trained for this purpose, and

this means the forest department. Other sections of society can and should

participate in decision-making or monitoring. I would thus advocate Joint

Monitoring of Protected Areas and not Joint Management.

 

*There is considerable criticism of the approach to conservation and

wildlife research…*

 

*Sukumar: *There has to be a proactive policy on research. The government

should go out with a wish list of research needs for increasing our

knowledge base on biodiversity and its management, and commission such

studies on a mission mode. Let me give you an example, I think there has to

be a countrywide multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional programme to

study the ecological consequences and management of invasive plants. Another

example could be a network of long-term ecological monitoring sites to cover

various biomes of the country. Research has to be treated under a separate

section of the Wildlife Protection Act and not clubbed along with tourism,

film making, and hunting. After all, we are advancing as a knowledge-based

society! Then, research has to be integrated with management plans.

 

*Lastly, do human beings really have an innate relationship with nature as

Edward Wilson's 'biophilia' hypothesis contends? Are we hardwired to yearn

for a link with nature?*

 

*Sukumar: *In the course of human evolution, when humans were still a part

of the natural landscape, it was inevitable that we had an innate

relationship with nature. This was a part of our very adaptation, survival

and evolution. We can thus think of being " hardwired " to a certain degree to

yearn for a link with nature. Life in today's concrete jungles however is

completely different. I wonder if the people who live in skyscrapers know

that the water they use comes from nature, or that fresh water could soon

become the cause of major conflicts? There are millions of people who would

scream if they see a lizard on the wall, or almost instinctively reach out

for a can of insect repellent if they see a harmless fly. Biophilia is dying

in the technological jungle. How we sensitize people about nature is one of

the major challenges if we are to avoid the callous destruction of nature

through profligate consumption.